J.  Morgenstem 


Foundations 
of 
Israel's  History 


^i 


B5I17I 
.M85 


!^ 


(A.. 


H?^ 


^ftUG  30  .1958  ^ 

BSH  7/ 


The  Foundations  of 
Israel's  History 


RABBI  JULIAN  MORGENSTERN 


Reprinted  fromYearbook,  Vol.  XX\' 

Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis 

—1915  — 


c^ 


— 3- 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  ISRAEL'S  HISTORY 
Rabbi  Julian  Morgenstern 


THE   CONCEPTION'^OF    REVELATION   IN   ANCIENT   ISRAEL 

In  all  religious  knowledge,  belief  and  practice,  two  realities, 
altogether  separate  and  distinct,  are  constantly  confused. 
These  two  realities  are  God  Himself,  and  man's  little,  human, 
finite  knowledge  of  God.  Regularly  individuals  and  creeds 
have  failed  to  realize,  on  the  one  hand,  that  God  Himself  is 
one  thing,  absolute,  supreme,  transcendental,  unknowable, 
not  human  but  more  than  human,  and  so  not  to  be  described 
by  human  attributes,  measured  by  human  standards,  nor  ade- 
quately comprehended  in  His  true  reality  by  human  minds; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  that  their  knowledge  of  Him,  the  little 
they  can  know  of  His  true  and  supreme  reality,  is  something 
vastly  different  and  infinitely  less.  And  they  believe,  almost 
without  exception,  that  what  they  know  about  God,  or  think 
that  they  know,  is  all  that  is  to  be  known,  is  all  of  God  Him- 
self. And  so  they  believe,  too,  that  whatever  others,  individuals 
or  creeds,  claim  to  know  about  God,  different  from,  or  more  than, 
their  knowledge,  must  necessarily  be  wrong,  false  and  heretical. 
There  is  very  much  of  this  perplexing  confusion  in  our  religious 
belief  and  practice,  and  the  results  are,  far  too  often,  ignorance, 
intolerance,  bigotry  and  strife. 

Yet  despite  all  this  human  disagreement  and  human  m- 
tolerance,  God  Himself  is  supreme,  eternal,  unattainable,  the 

1  Chapters  I  and  II,  virtually  constituting  the  introduction  to  this  paper, 
were  not  written  until  after  the  Charlevoix  convention.  They  are,  accord- 
ingly herewith  presented  to  the  Conference  for  the  first  time.  Their  import, 
howe'ver.  for  the  proper  approach  to,  and  understanding  of,  the  subject, 
will  be  immediately  apparent  to  all. 


loving  Father  of  man,  the  all-wise  and  all-good  controller  of 
human  destinies.  And  from  the  beginning  of  his  life  on  earth, 
man's  constant  endeavor,  unconscious  largely,  yet  none  the  less 
earnest  and  persistent,  has  been  to  come  close  to  God,  to  know 
His  way  better  and  ever  better.  Like  Moses  of  old,  man's  cry 
has  ever  been,  "Let  me  behold  Thy  face."  But  to  him,  too, 
the  answer  has  come,  "No  man  may  behold  My  face  and  live." 
Yet  despite  this  answer,  like  Moses  again,  man  has  ever  per- 
sisted, persisted  just  because  of  the  divine  element  within  him, 
to  know  more,  and  ever  more,  about  God.  And  just  as  to  Moses, 
God  has,  in  His  infinite  love,  granted  a  portion  of  man's 
request.  Although  His  face  was  denied,  still  He  has  permitted 
man  to  hear  His  voice,  to  learn  His  true  name,  and  to  even  catch 
a  fleeting  glimpse  of  His  back,  and,  from  all  this,  form  some  esti- 
mate, some  dim,  vague  picture  of  His  true  being,  His  reality 
and  majesty  and  glory.  He  has  granted  to  man,  as  the  result 
of  his  ceaseless  striving  upward,  to  know  more  and  more  about 
Him  and  to  understand  more  and  more  of  His  divine  purpose 
in  man's  life.  And  this  steadily  growing  knowledge  of  God  and 
God's  purpose  with  man,  revealed  through  many  sources  and  in 
many  ways,  constitutes  man's  religion.  And  the  record  of  the 
gradual  unfolding  and  growth  of  this  knowledge  is  the  true 
history  of  religion. 

In  all  this  history  of  religion,  this  record  of  God's  revela- 
tion of  Himself  to  mankind,  Israel  has  borne,  we  believe,  not 
merely  a  leading  role,  but  the  leading  role.  This  fact  is  con- 
ceded by  almost  all  the  civilized  world,  even  though  men  may 
differ  as  to  the  actual  nature  and  extent  of  this  leadership. 
Some  there  are,  who  grudgingly  admit  the  fact,  yet  minimize 
it  as  much  as  possible.  And  some  hold  that  another  leader- 
ship was  instituted  under  a  new  dispensation  nineteen  hundred 
years  ago.  Others,  and  not  a  few,  rate  Israel's  leadership  more 
highly,  and  even  recognize  that  it  has  not  ceased  unto  the 
present  day. 

We  Jews  ourselves,  and  particularly  we  of  the  Reform 
wing  of  Judaism,  who  believe  firmly  in  Israel's  mission  unto 
mankind  and  in  the  principle  of  religious  growth  and  progress 
along  the  lines  of  historical  evolution,  hold  fast  to  our  faith  in 
Israel's  leadership  in  this  growing  knowledge  of  God;  hold  that 


— 5- 


it  was  particularly  through  Israel  that  God  revealed  Himself 
to  mankind;  that,  in  the  v/ords  of  the  great,  unknown  prophet 
of  the  exile,  God  has  Himself  chosen  Israel  to  be  His  servant, 
His  witness  unto  mankind.  His  light  unto  all  the  nations  of 
men;  that  He  has  revealed  Himself  unto  Israel,  that  Israel  in 
turn  might  spread  the  knowledge  of  Him  to  all  mankind.  He 
revealed  Himself  through  Moses  and  the  prophets  in  successive 
ages.  And  the  sum  total  of  this  revelation  of  Himself  through 
Israel  is  the  sum  total  of  Israel's  knowledge  of  Him,  is  Israel's 
religion,  and,  as  we  believe,  the  basis  of  the  true,  ultimate 
religion  of  mankind. 

But  the  conception  of  the  actual  nature  and  means  of  this 
self-revelation  of  God  to  and  through  Israel  has  varied  greatly 
in  the  different  periods  of  Israel's  religious  unfolding.  In  the 
very  earliest  period,  the  means  and  agents  were  believed  to  be 
many  and  diverse  indeed.  Auguries,  portents,  omens,  miracles, 
consultation  of  spirits  and  ghosts,  these  and  others  were  all 
regarded  as  media  of  revelation  of  the  divine  will  and  divine 
nature.  However,  as  the  religious  consciousness  of  the  people 
became  more  refined,  the  number  of  legitimate  modes  of  revela- 
tion was  gradually  reduced  to  three,  the  dream  and  vision,  the 
oracle,  and  the  prophetic  word^  Repeatedly  in  the  Bible,  God 
is  represented  as  revealing  Himself  and  His  divine  purpose  to 
chosen  individuals  in  dreams  or  visions.^  Moses  consults  the 
oracle,  according  to  tradition^  and  evolves  for  the  people  a 
body  of  oracular  law,  even  though  represented  elsewhere*  as 
speaking  to  God  face  to  face.  Joshua,  too,  consults  the  oracle 
and  casts  lots  to  determine  the  divine  willS  as  do  likewise 
Samuel,  SauP,  and  David*. 


'  Cf.  I  Sam.  XXVIII,  6. 

'  Cf.  Gen.  XV,  1;  XX,  6;  XXVIII,  12;  XXXVII,  5-10;  XL,  8-13;  XLI, 
1-32;  Num.  XII,  6;  XXIV,  4,  16;  Dt.  XIII,  2-6. 
'  Ex.  XVIII,  19-26. 

*  Ex.  XXXIII,  11;  Num.  XII,  7f.;  Dt.  XXXIV,  10. 
^  Josh.  VII,  14ff.;  XIV,  2;  XVff. 
*J  Sam.  X,  20-22  (cf.  LXX). 
'  I  Sam.  XIV,  18f.  (cf.  LXX),  38-42  (cf.  LXX). 
'  I  Sam.  XXIII,  2,  4,  6,  10-12;  II  Sam.  V,  23f. 


— 6- 


But  above  all,  in  the  course  of  Israel's  religious  develop- 
ment, prophecy  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  peculiar  and  unique 
means  of  God's  self-revelation  to  His  people.  And,  more  and 
more,  even  consultation  of  the  oracle  and  the  interpretation  of 
dreams  and  visions  were  relegated  to  an  inferior  position.  For 
prophetic  revelation  was  national  in  character;  it  expressed  God's 
will  for  the  entire  nation.  The  prophets  saw  in  themselves  the 
direct  agents  and  mouthpieces  of  God,  speaking  to  the  people 
the  actual  words  which  God  had  placed  upon  their  tongues. 
But  of  even  more  significance  than  these  actual  words  of  God, 
they  saw  God's  hand  in  all  things,  in  the  events  of  their  own 
personal  lives\  and  in  all  the  incidents  of  Israel's  history.  They 
came  to  conceive  of  God  as  the  all-wise  and  all-good  controller 
of  human  destiny.  Therefore  in  all  the  events  of  history,  and 
particularly  of  Israel's  history,  they  saw  His  power  and  read 
His  divine  purpose.  Other  peoples  and  other  religious  teachers 
found  their  evidences  of  the  existence  of  God  and  the  manifesta- 
tions of  His  power  and  rule  in  nature,  in  the  beauty  of  the  flowers, 
the  majesty  of  the  heaven,  the  power  of  the  storm,  the  awful- 
ness  of  the  flood.  The  prophets,  and  through  them  all  Israel, 
too,  saw  all  this  as  clearly  as  any  others.  But  even  more,  they 
saw  God,  not  merely  in  nature;  they  saw  God,  too,  in  the  events 
of  human  history;  saw  Him  guiding  the  destinies  of  men  and  na- 
tions aright,  bringing  good  out  of  the  chaos  of  human  purpose, 
human  conduct  and  human  vanity,  changing  the  temporary 
evil  of  man's  deeds  into  permanent  good  and  blessing^  bringing 
mankind  ever  forward,  half  unconsciously,  along  that  difficult, 
slow,  up-hill  course,  that  mankind  has  trodden  since  the  begin- 
ning, that  we  are  treading  still  today,  despite  wars  and  bar- 
barisms and  relapses  in  civilization,  and  that  mankind  must 
continue  to  tread,  we  believe,  until  the  end  of  time  and  history 


^  Thus  Hosea  interpreted  his  own  relations  with  his  harlot  wife  as  or- 
dained by  God  in  order  to  graphically  illustrate  Israel's  faithlessness,  for  him- 
self and  the  people.  And  he  gave  to  his  children,  as  did  Isaiah  after  him, 
names  symbolic  of  God's  relation  and  purpose  with  Israel. 

*  Compare  the  thought  underlying  the  words  of  Joseph  to  his  brothers, 
"Ye  planned  evil  against  me,  but  God  devised  it  for  good,  in  order  to  pre- 
serve the  life  of  a  mighty  people."     (Gen.  F.,  20.) 


and  life,  the  course  of  progress  and  enlightenment  and  knowl- 
edge, the  knowledge  of  God  Himself  and  of  His  purpose  with 
man  on  earth. 

In  Israel's  history,  in  particular,  the  prophets  saw  the 
evidences  of  God's  love  and  purpose  and  guidance.  It  was 
Israel  alone  whom  God  had  known  of  all  peoples^  whom  He 
had  found  like  grapes  in  the  wilderness*^,  His  first-born  son', 
whom  He  had  taken  in  His  arms,  and  taught  to  walk,  and  whose 
bruises  He  had  healed^  whom  He  had  taken  unto  Himself,  that 
they  might  be  unto  Him  for  a  people  and  He  be  unto  them  for 
their  God^  And  every  event  in  Israel's  history,  they  held, 
happened  in  accordance  with  God's  will  and  purpose  for  Israel, 
for  reward  and  blessing,  or  chastisement  and  correction,  or  divine 
guidance.  Every  event  of  history  was  purposed  by  God,  though 
not  at  all  in  the  way  of  blind  fatalism.  Man  was  not  the  power- 
less puppet,  dancing  as  the  deity  pulled  the  strings;  rather,  he 
was  the  majestic  creature,  but  little  lower  than  the  angels,  en- 
dowed by  God  with  knowledge  and  free  will,  yet  subject  to  God's 
laws  and  amenable  to  correction  and  even  punishment,  when  the 
exercise  of  this  free  will  led  contrary  to  God's  plan  of  good. 
Everything  in  history,  they  believed,  was  purposed  by  God. 
In  the  words  of  Amos\  "Do  two  walk  together,  without  having 
agreed?  Doth  the  lion  roar  in  the  forest,  when  there  is  no  prey? 
Doth  the  young  lion  utter  forth  his  voice  from  his  den,  without 
having  taken  something?  Doth  a  bird  fall  into  a  snare  on  the 
ground,  without  the  trap  having  been  set?  Doth  a  snare  spring 
up  from  the  ground,  without  catching  something?  Can  the 
trumpet  be  blown  in  the  city,  and  the  people  not  tremble? 
Can  evil  befall  a  city,  and  the  Lord  not  have  caused  it?  Verily, 
the  Lord  God  doeth  nothing  at  all,  without  having  revealed 
His  secret  purpose  unto  His  servants,  the  prophets.  The  lion 
roareth;  who  can  but  fear?  The  Lord  God  hath  spoken;  who 
can  but  prophesy?"  Can  anything  happen  without  cause; 
and  can  any  cause  exert  itself  except  to  its  full  effect?    And  the 


'  Amos  111,2.  *  Ex.  IV,  22. 

'  Hos.  IX,  10.  *  Hos.  XI,  3. 

'  Ex.  VI,  7;  Lev.  XXVI,  12;  Dt.  XXVI,  17;  XXIX,  12. 

«  Amos  III,  3-8. 


ultimate  cause  of  all  events  of  history  is  God  himself;  and  the 
effects  of  His  divine  purpose  are  just  these  events  of  history. 
And  His  secret  plan,  His  definite  purpose  for  men  and  nations 
and  mankind,  He  reveals  to  His  messengers,  the  prophets,  that 
they,  in  turn,  may  reveal  it  to  Israel  and  to  mankind.  The 
prophets  were,  above  all,  the  interpreters  of  history,  and  par- 
ticularly of  Israel's  history,  reading  God's  divine  plan  there 
aright,  and  proclaiming  therefrom  His  purpose,  His  message, 
and  His  life  to  man. 

We  can  readily  understand,  therefore,  the  significant  fact, 
oft  commented  upon,  that  the  great  prophets  appeared  always 
at  the  important  crises,  national  and  religious.  They  were  all 
the  children  of  their  own  times,  called  forth  by  its  needs  and 
spiritual  dangers.  And,  in  the  name  of  the  God  of  Israel,  they 
interpreted  to  the  people  these  needs  and  dangers  and  the  real 
significance  of  the  passing  events  of  history.  In  the  various  cal- 
amities that  had  befallen,  and  were  befalling,  Israel,  they  saw 
the  signs  of  Israel's  faithlessness  and  of  God's  indignation  and 
divine  punishment.  Amos  and  Hosea  interpreted  the  impending 
downfall  of  the  northern  kingdom  as  evidence  of  the  people's 
hopeless  corruption  and  incapability  of  repentence  and  regenera- 
tion. They  saw  in  Assyria  the  rod  of  God's  anger,  with  which 
He  must  smite  the  sinful  nation.  Isaiah  counselled  a  policy 
of  national  steadfastness  and  defense,  the  watchword  of  which 
was  absolute  faith  in  God's  protecting  power,  and  entangling 
alliances  with  no  foreign  nations.  Jeremiah,  too,  saw  in  Ne- 
buchadrezzar the  instrument  of  God's  will  with  Israel,  and  urged, 
among  other  things,  peaceful  settlement  and  development  of 
economic  life  in  the  land  of  exile.  And  finally,  the  great,  un- 
known prophet  discerned  in  all  Israel's  sin  and  suffering  and 
exile  merely  the  divine  purification  and  preparation  for  its  great 
mission  as  God's  witness  unto  mankind.  The  prophets  were, 
in  a  sense,  the  makers  of  Israel's  history,  particularly  Israel's 
religious  history  and  thought.  But  equally,  or  to  an  even  greater 
degree,  they  were  the  children  of  Israel's  history,  called  to  their 
great,  prophetic  mission  by  the  needs,  national  and  spiritual, 
of  their  own  times.  And  their  message  consisted  primarily  in 
interpreting  to  Israel,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  God  of  history. 


— 9— 

all  the  significant  events  of  its  national  life,  in  order  that  Israel 
might  thereby  realize  the  better  God's  purpose  with  it,  and  live 
more  true  to  this  purpose.  And  through  this  interpretation  of 
Israel's  history,  as  the  wise  and  purposed  work  of  God,  steadily 
they  fulfilled  their  inspired  task  of  proclaiming  likewise  to  God's 
people  their  transgressions  and  to  the  house  of  Jacob  their  sins'. 

But  not  merely  the  passing  events  of  their  own  day  did  they 
interpret  thus.  Time  and  again  they  reinforced  their  message 
by  reference  to  the  great  events  and  heroes  of  Israel's  past. 
And  through  their  interpretation  these  took  on  new,  larger  and 
more  spiritual  significance.  Particularly  was  this  the  case  with 
the  traditions  of  the  patriarchs,  especially  Jacob^,  and  of  the 
exodus  from  Egypt.  One  prophet  after  another  dv/elt  upon 
this  last  incident  in  particular  and  found  therein  new  evidence 
of  God's  providence  and  love  and  divine  selection  of  Israel'. 
According  to  this  prophetic  interpretation,  it  was  then  that  God 
first  manifested  His  all-embracing  love  for  Israel  and  took  Israel 
into  covenant  relation  with  Himself.  And  so,  according  to  this 
new,  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  historic  event,  the  exodus 
from  Egypt  came  gradually  to  be  looked  upon  as  marking  the 
beginning  of  both  the  national  and  religious  existence  of  Israel. 

But  not  only  in  the  prophetic  books  themselves,  can  we 
discern  the  prophet's  interpretation  of  Israel's  history.  We 
know  now  that  practically  all  the  historical  portions  of  the 
Bible,  and  particularly  the  larger  part  of  the  Torah,  are  the 
work  of  prophetic  writers,  interpreting  the  ancient,  tradi- 
tional history  of  Israel  from  this  prophetic  standpoint  of  divine 
purpose  and  providence.  A  typical  instance  is  found  in  the 
statements  that  when  Pharaoh  sent  Israel  forth  from  Egypt, 
God  did  not  lead  them  by  the  road  through  the  land  of  the 
Philistines,  although  this  was  the  shortest  route,  for  He  feared 
that  when  the  danger  of  battle  would  be  imminent,  they  might 
become  frightened  and  change  their  minds  and  return  to  Egypt; 
so  He  led  the  people  around  the  long  way  by  the  Red  Sea  and 


'  Is.  LVIII,  1.  '  Cf.  Hos.  XII,  4-5. 

'  Is.  XI,  16;  Jer.  II,  6;  VII,  22-25;  XI,  4;  Ezek.  XX,  5-10;  Hos.  II,  17; 
IX,  3;  XI,  1;  XII,  10;  XIII,  4;  Amos  II,  10;  III,  1;  Mic.  VI,  4. 
*  Ex.  XIV,  17f. 


—10- 


through  the  wilderness  for  forty  years.  Practically  all  the  many 
narratives  of  the  Pentateuch  are  told  from  this  unmistakably 
prophetic  standpoint,  and  with  this  unmistakably  prophetic 
purpose,  of  pointing,  with  the  traditions  of  Israel's  past  history, 
the  lesson  of  God's  peculiar  relation  to,  and  love  for,  Israel, 
and  Israel's  peculiar  obligation  to  God.  It  is  clear  that  these 
prophetic  writers  have  taken  many  old  traditions  and  inten- 
tionally recast  and  reinterpreted  them  to  further  this  purpose. 
Their  object  in  all  this  was  not  to  determine  how  much  of 
historic  truth  lay  at  the  bottom  of  all  these  traditions,  nor  to 
record  the  events  of  Israel's  history  as  they  had  actually  trans- 
pired. They  were  not  objective  historians;  in  fact,  they  were 
not  historians  at  all,  in  the  strict  meaning  of  the  word.  Rather, 
they  were  didactic,  historical  writers;  and  their  purpose  was  to 
enforce  their  spiritual  message  by  interpreting  the  facts  of  Is- 
rael's ancient  history,  and  its  old  traditions,  legends  and  myths, 
from  their  prophetic  standpoint;  to  read  their  message  into  these 
traditions  and  into  the  record  of  Israel's  history,  that  Israel, 
in  turn,  might  read  the  message  therefrom,  and  gather,  with 
redoubled  strength  and  conviction,  the  lesson  of  its  history  as 
proclaimed  by  the  prophets,  the  lesson  of  God's  selection  and 
guidance  of,  and  purpose  with,  Israel,  and  of  Israel's  obliga- 
tion of  faith  in,  and  duty  to,  God. 

In  accordance  with  this  unvarying  purpose,  it  was  unavoid- 
able that,  in  recording  the  ancient  history,  traditions  and  legends, 
they  took  many  and  considerable  liberties  with  historical  ac- 
curacy. They  could  have  no  hesitation  in  recasting  some  an- 
cient tradition  to  fit  their  purpose.  Nor  could  they  record  all 
the  ancient  traditions  and  legends  that  did  not  readily  accord 
with  this  purpose.  Here  and  there  we  have  just  a  hint  at  some 
tradition  or  legend,  which,  for  one  reason  or  another,  these  proph- 
etic writers  did  not  see  fit  to  relate  in  full'.  And  we  can  readily 
understand  that  very  many  of  Israel's  most  ancient  traditions 
and  legends  they  saw  no  reason  to  record,  and  so  these  have 
been  lost  completely.  Other  traditions  they  naturally  retold 
and  enlarged  upon,  until,  in  their  present  form,  they  must  be 
far  from  their  original,  and  can  contain  but  little  of  actual, 


'  Cf.  Gen.  VI,  1-4;  X,  9f.;  XXXII,  2f. 


41- 


objective,  historical  truth.  Thus  the  very  stories  of  the  exodus 
and  of  Israel's  covenant  with  God,  and  the  many  BibUcal  tra- 
ditions about  Moses,  are  greatly  expanded  from  their  original 
pre-prophetic,  historical  form\  In  many  cases  it  is  not  a  diffi- 
cult task  for  the  capable  historian  to  strip  off  all  the  prophetic 
accretion  and  get  at  the  real  historical  facts  beneath.  Thus 
we  know  today  that  Moses  was  really  the  hero  who  led  one  tribe, 
most  probably  Judah\  out  from  Egypt,  back  into  the  wilder- 
ness, its  original  nomad  abode;  and  there,  acting  as  its  tribal 
priest  and  interpreter  of  the  oracle,  he  brought  the  tribe  into 
covenant  relation  with  a  desert  god,  thought  to  dwell  upon  some 
certain,  solitary  peak  in  the  wilderness,  and,  in  the  name  of 
this  new  god,  and  as  revealed  by  him,  evolved  for  the  tribe  a 
body  of  ritual  and  ethical  law,  which  in  time  became  the  basis 
of  the  religion  of  Israel'.  In  this  sense  Moses  is  a  real,  historical 
character,  actually  the  law-giver  and  ultimate  founder  of 
Israel's  religion.  And  the  exodus  is  an  actual,  historical  event, 
and  marks,  in  a  way,  the  beginning  of  Israel's  national  and 
religious  life.  But  at  the  hands  of  successive  prophets  and 
prophetic  writers,  the  original  narratives  of  Moses  and  the 
exodus  and  the  giving  of  the  law  have  been  recast  and  expanded 
into  their  present  form  in  the  Pentateuch.  Moses  has  ceased 
to  be  the  simple  tribal  priest  and  enactor  of  the  earliest  tribal 
laws.  He  has  become  the  great  national  hero,  the  medium  of 
the  revelation  of  the  whole  body  of  national  law.  And  even 
though  much  of  this,  it  is  stated,  was  intended  to  become  effec- 
tive only  at  a  day  much  later  than  Moses,  it  is  all  represented 
as  emanating  directly  from  God  and  revealed  through  Moses  at 


*  Cf.  Montefiore,  Outlines  of  Liberal  Judaism,  188f. 

'  Or,  possibly,  Judah  and  Simeon.  Some  scholars,  mistakenly,  we  be- 
lieve, are  inclined  to  believe  this  to  have  been  the  Joseph  tribes,  i.  e., 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh. 

'  Apparently,  too,  Moses  effected  some  sort  of  federation  between  Judah, 
or  Judah  and  Simeon,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Qenites,  with  whom  he 
himself  was  personally  related  by  marriage,  and  possibly  also  the  Qalebites, 
the  Qenizzites  and  other  nomadic  tribes  of  the  desert  south  of  Palestine 
and  bordering  upon  Egypt.  In  this  sense  Moses  was  also  the  first  leader 
in  that  movement  toward  tribal  federation  that  eventually  culminated  in 
the  evolution  of  the  nation,  Israel. 


-12— 


the  very  beginning  of  Israel's  national  existence.  And  Moses  has 
come,  furthermore,  to  be  represented  by  these  prophetic  writers, 
and  most  naturally,  as  the  supreme  type  of  prophet,  who,  unlike 
and  superior  to  all  other  prophets,  could  commune  with  God, 
not  merely  in  dreams  and  visions,  but  face  to  face,  just  as  one 
man  would  speak  with  another^  There  is  a  vast  difference 
between  this  prophetic,  literary,  Pentateuchal  Moses,  the 
supreme  prophet,  and  the  actual,  historical  Moses,  the  tribal 
priest,  leader  and  interpreter  of  the  oracle  in  the  wilderness. 
The  prophetic  purpose,  and  the  prophetic  interpretation  of 
history,  and  the  prophetic  enlargement  of  the  original  tradi- 
tions are  easily  discernible  here.  And  the  competent  Biblical 
student  must  learn  to  so  read  his  Bible  as  to  appreciate  and 
distinguish  between  the  actual  facts  of  history  at  the  bottom 
of  all  the  recorded  narratives  and  the  prophetic  enlargement  and 
interpretation  that  have  been  placed  upon  these  facts  in  their 
present  Biblical  form. 

Such  were  the  prophet's  interpretation  of  Israel's  history 
and  the  prophet's  conception  of  revelation  and  of  his  function 
as  an  agent  of  this  revelation.  Each  prophet,  convinced  of  his 
divine  call  in  the  most  literal  sense,  felt  himself  to  be,  and  actually 
was,  a  single  link  in  the  great  chain  of  God's  self-revelation  to 
His  people.  He  believed  himself  and  his  words  to  be  merely 
the  instruments  of  this  divine  self-revelation.  But  more  im- 
portant than  the  single  personality  of  any  one  prophet  was  the 
content  of  his  message;  and  more  important  than  the  combined 
personalities  of  all  the  prophets  was  the  sum  total  of  their 
message,  the  basis  and  content  and  purpose,  as  they  believed, 
of  all  revelation,  Israel's  actual  history,  past,  present  and  future. 

During  and  after  the  Babylonian  captivity,  the  old  spirit 
of  prophetism,  which  had  come,  with  Deutero-lsaiah,  to  trans- 
cend the  limitations  of  national  life  and  national  religion,  and 
attained  to  a  wider  and  loftier  universalism  in  its  conception 
of  God  and  Israel  and  Israel's  role  in  the  divine  scheme  of  human 
existence,  slowly  gave  way  to  the  new  spirit  of  priesthood, 
ritualism  and  legalism.  This  was,  in  a  sense,  distinctly  national- 
istic, or  better,  national-religious;  it  represented  a  more  or  less 


^  Ex.  XXXIII,  11;  Num.  XIV,  7f.;  Dt.  XXXIV,  10-12. 


—13- 


conscious  reaction  and  protest  against  prophetic  universalism, 
and  reaffirmed  in  new  and  even  stronger  terms  the  old  national- 
religious  doctrine  of  the  peculiar,  unique  relation  of  God  with 
Israel.  Israel  alone  was  His  people,  alone  was  holy  unto  Him, 
and  He  alone  was  Israel's  God;  in  relation  to  Israel  He,  too,  was 
holy.  The  term  "holy,"  qadosh,  gradually  acquired  a  new  and 
more  technical  connotation;  it  came  to  mean  not  merely  "mor- 
ally and  spiritually  perfect,"  as  used  by  Isaiah  in  reference  to 
God  Himself;  nor  did  it  retain  even  its  earlier  technical  sense, 
"peculiarly  sacred  to  a  deity  and  hence  taboo  for  mortals."* 
It  was  now  applied  to  everything  that  pertained  to  this  sanctity, 
the  peculiar  ritualistic  and  ethical  and  spiritual  laws  and  re- 
strictions by  which  the  "holiness"  obtaining  between  God  and 
Israel  was  preserved  and  strengthened'.  It  was  the  old,  national 
religion,  revived,  intensified  and  centralized,  and,  it  must  be 
recognized,  purified  and  spiritualized  also. 

But  it  meant  the  end  of  prophecy.  For,  beginning  with 
Amos,  prophecy  had  been  gradually  outgrowing  the  old,  na- 
tional religion;  had  been  evolving  the  universal  conception  of 
the  all-Fatherhood  of  God  and  of  human  brotherhood  and  of 
the  divine  selection  of  Israel  for  a  definite  purpose  and  mission 
unto  mankind.  Finally,  in  Babylon,  the  people  found  itself 
completely  detached  from  its  native  soil,  saw  its  national  life 
and  institutions  and  traditions  seemingly  dead,  realized  that  it 
was  living  among  strangers,  and,  after  the  first  suffering  and 
grief  of  exile  had  worn  off,  was  even  happy  and  prosperous. 


*  Is.  VI,  3.  *  Cf.  below  pp.  269f. 

'  Note  the  significant  manner  in  which  laws,  ethical  and  spiritual  in 
character,  are  grouped  with  laws  unmistakably  and  solely  ritualistic  in  Lev. 
XIX,  and  in  fact  throughout  the  entire  Holiness  Code  (Lev.  XVII-XXVI 
in  the  main).  The  purpose  of  both  kinds  of  law  is  clearly  stated  to  be  to  safe- 
guard this  holiness  relation  between  God  and  Israel.  The  watchword  of  this 
new  movement  was,  "Holy  shall  ye  be,  for  I,  Jahwe,  your  God,  am  holy" 
(Lev.  XIX,  1).  Here  "holy"  is  used  in  the  new,  technical,  semi-spiritual  and 
semi-ritualistic  sense  just  indicated.  Repeatedly,  too,  the  holiness  com- 
mand is  enforced  with  the  all-compelling  thought,  "I  am  Jahwe"  (Lev.  XIX, 
12,  14,  16,  18  and  passim),  or  "I  am  Jahwe,  your  God"  (Lev.  XVIII,  30; 
XIX,  3,  4,  10,  25  and  passim),  or  even,  "I  am  Jahwe,  who  doth  make  you 
holy,"  i.  e.,  holy  unto  Himself,  His  peculiar  property  (Lev.  XX,  8;  XXI, 
8,  15,  23;  XXII,  9,  16). 


—14- 


Yet  during  all  this  time  it  had  retained  its  faith  in  its  God, 
the  God  of  its  fathers;  its  old  God,  yet  also  its  new  God,  who 
seemed  no  longer  bound  by  the  geographical  limits  of  the  land 
of  Palestine  or  the  political  limits  of  the  nation  Israel;  who 
seemed  the  God  also,  though  perhaps  not  to  quite  the  same 
degree  nor  in  exactly  the  same  way,  of  the  nations  among  whom 
they  lived  and  with  whom  they  associated  and  did  business. 
The  conviction  became  strong  on  the  part  of  some  that  this 
very  exile  from  the  native  land,  and  the  death  of  the  nation, 
had  been  really  purposed  by  God.  And  prophetic  univer- 
salism  blossomed  forth  during  and  immediately  after  the  Baby- 
lonian captivity  into  definite  and  clear  expression  in  the  words  of 
Deutero-Isaiah,  the  very  culmination  and  flower,  we  believe, 
of  prophetic  inspiration  and  prophetic  activity. 

But  while  this  spirit  of  universalism  was  thus  developing, 
and  continued  to  develop  in  Palestine  in  small  and  select  circles 
even  after  the  captivity,  as  the  books  of  Ruth  and  Jonah  prove, 
none  the  less,  the  reaction  against  the  captivity  and  against 
the  spirit  of  universalism  had  begun  in  Babylon  long  before  the 
advent  of  Deutero-Isaiah,  had  begun  in  fact  almost  with  the  very 
commencement  of  the  captivity.  Ezekiel  was  the  father  of  this 
reaction.  It  based  itself  upon  the  confident  hope,  already 
voiced  by  Jeremiah\  at  least  according  to  popular  interpreta- 
tion, that  the  captivity  would  not  mark  the  end;  that  the 
nation  would  once  more  be  restored,  the  Temple  rebuilt,  and 
the  national  life  and  national  worship  revived.  Once  more, 
though  in  a  stricter  and  more  literal,  though  at  the  same 
time  also  more  spiritual,  sense,  Israel  would  be  God's  peculiar 
people  and  He  their  peculiar  God,  Israel  "holy"  unto  Him  and 
He  "holy"  unto  them.  And  this  unique  and  intimate  relation- 
ship of  "holiness"  must  be  safeguarded  by  every  means  possible, 
not  only  by  ethical  living,  as  enjoined  by  the  earlier  prophets, 
but  also  by  more  constant  and  intense  and  punctilious  worship 
and  ritualism,  and,  if  necessary,  even  by  such  extreme  measures 
as  the  compulsory  divorce  of  non-Jewish  wives^  In  conse- 
quence this  new  national-religious  movement,  in  glaring  con- 
trast to  the  old  prophecy,  accentuated  the  ritual  side  of  the 

*  Jer.  XXV,  1  Iff.  '  Cf.  Ezra  IX-X. 


-15- 


religion  more  and  ever  more.  The  tendency  of  prophecy  had 
been  away  from  ritualism.  Amos,  Isaiah,  Micah  and  Jeremiah 
had  inveighed  against  it  in  the  most  scathing  terms\  Ezekiel, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  founder  of  the  new  movement,  himself  a 
priest,  was  the  first  of  the  ritualist,  priestly  prophets.  After 
him  came  Haggai,  Zechariah  and  Malachi,  spiritual  prophets 
in  a  sense,  yet  with  the  new  priestly  and  ritualistic  spiritualism. 
The  old,  truer  and  more  inspired  prophecy,  after  reaching  its 
climax  in  Deutero-Isaiah,  came  to  a  natural  end.  Here  and  there 
we  find  an  occasional  utterance  in  the  old  spirit,  and  later  apo- 
calyptic literature,  too,  now  and  then  reveals  something  thereof. 
But  true  prophecy  itself  was  dead;  it  had  too  much  outgrown 
the  narrowing  influences  of  national  life  and  national  religion, 
to  live  on  in  the  new  atmosphere.  The  spirit  of  the  people  at 
large,  even  in  Babylon,  was  intensely  ritualistic.  Not  only  the 
Book  of  Ezekiel  and  the  Holiness  Code  were  composed  in  Baby- 
lon, but  the  greater  part  of  the  Priestly  Code^  as  well.  The 
prophet  ceased  to  be  the  foremost  factor  in  the  interpretation 
and  development  of  the  religious  life.  The  priest  now  com- 
pletely took  his  place  as  the  religious  leader  and  expounder  of 
the  divine  nature  and  the  divine  will.  And  Israel  itself  turned 
from  the  role  of  a  prophet-people  with  a  divine  world-message, 
such  as  Deutero-Isaiah  had  conceived  for  it,  to  that  of  a  priest- 
people,  charged  with  the  duty  of  punctiliously  worshipping  its 
God  and  jealously  and  scrupulously  living  the  life  He  had  or- 
dained for  it  alone.' 


'  Amos  V,  21-25;  Is.  1,10-17  (cf.  LVIII,  1-12);  Jer.  VII,  1-10;  Mic.6-8. 

^  In  addition  to  a  few  chapters  in  Genesis  and  in  the  last  half  of  Num- 
bers, and  the  very  close  of  Deuteronomy,  found  for  the  most  part  in  Ex. 
XXIV,  15-XXXI;  XXXV-XL;  Leviticus  (complete);  Num.  I-X,  28.  The 
Holiness  Code  is  incorporated  in  the  Priestly  Code.  Cf.  Carpenter  and 
Harford,  The  Composition  of  the  Hexateuch,  228-300  and  index. 

^  In  passing,  an  interesting  and  significant  thought  may  be  presented. 
As  the  result  of  perfectly  natural  and  easily  comprehended  religious  evolu- 
tion, Israel  had  come  to  a  curious  division  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  interpre- 
tation of  its  religion  and  its  history.  On  the  one  hand,  as  has  been  pointed 
out,  a  universalistic  conception  of  God  and  religion  had  developed  from  Amos 
to  Deutero-Isaiah,  culminating  in  the  doctrine  of  the  all-fatherhood  of  God  and 
of  human  brotherhood  and  of  the  mission  of  Israel.     In  its  expression  by 


-16- 


It  was  but  natural  that  with  this  spiritual  death  of  prophecy, 
and  the  development  of  the  new,  priestly  spirit  and  rituaHstic  in- 

Deutero-Isaiah,  himself  probably  living  in  Palestine,  this  conception  was 
coupled  with  the  thought  of  the  return  of  Israel  to  its  fatherland,  and,  pre- 
sumably, the  consequent  re-establishment  of  the  nation.  But  this  return 
and  this  national  reconstruction  were  only  means  to  the  greater  end  of  Israel's 
role  in  the  prophet's  scheme  of  universalism;  Israel  was  to  be,  above  all,  the 
light  unto  the  nations.  Nowhere  does  the  prophet  attempt  any  picture  of  the 
reconstructed  national  life,  of  the  administration  of  the  new  government,  or 
of  the  blessings  and  joys  of  the  new  national  independence.  The  universal- 
istic  ideal  is  the  great  goal;  Israel  is  to  live,  not  apart,  by  and  for  itself,  and 
holy  to  its  God  alone,  but  among  and  for  the  sake  of  the  nations. 

Certainly,  too,  there  were  some,  perhaps  many,  who  shared  the  prophet's 
dream  of  universalism,  but  went  by  no  means  as  far  in  their  conception  of, 
and  longing  for,  the  return  to  Palestine  and  the  re-building  of  the  nation. 
Undoubtedly  to  many,  particularly  in  Babylon,  happy  and  prosperous  in  the 
land  of  their  adoption,  the  return  must  have  seemed  an  altogether  unessential 
detail  of  the  universalistic  program.  How  could  they  preach  universalism 
or  how  serve  its  cause  better,  than  when  living  among  strangers  in  a  strange 
land,  yet  feeling  and  showing  themselves  altogether  one,  truly  brothers,  with 
the  people  among  whom  they  were  living?  Since  this  doctrine  of  univer- 
salism must  have  accorded  completely  with  the  life  and  life-philosophy  of 
very  many  Jews,  born  in  Babylon,  and  happy  and  prosperous  there,  it  offers 
the  simplest  and  most  natural  explanation  of  that  otherwise  strange  fact  that, 
when  the  opportunity  to  return  to  Palestine  did  come  and  was  repeatedly 
renewed,  so  few  availed  themselves  thereof.  It  was,  undoubtedly,  not  merely 
because  the  majority  of  the  Babylonian  Jews  were  too  materialistically 
inclined  to  exchange  their  prosperity  in  Babylon  for  the  hardships  of  removal 
to,  and  sojourn  in  Palestine.  Far  more  likely,  it  was  just  because  very  many, 
possibly  the  great  majority,  approved  of  this  prophetic  universalism  and  felt 
that  they  could  best  champion  this  cause,  this  conception  and  interpretation 
of  Judaism,  in  Babylon  itself. 

Yet  these  Jews  had  not  compromised  their  Judaism  nor  departed  from 
its  teachings  in  the  least.  On  the  contrary,  Deutero-Isaiah  had  not  at  all 
given  birth  to  an  absolutely  new  thought  in  his  doctrine  of  universalism. 
Rather,  this  doctrine  had  been  developing  slowly  but  surely  in  the  religious 
life  and  experience  and  thought  of  the  people;  it  was  the  natural  and  neces- 
sary culmination  of  the  evolution  of  prophetic  religion.  And  the  culmination 
at  just  this  moment  was  largely  due  to  the  conditions  of  life  in  Babylon,  away 
from  the  fatherland  and  all  national  influences.  Although  Deutero-Isaiah 
was  the  one  who  formulated  the  subconscious  thought  and  philosophy  in 
words,  and  was  its  foremost  expounder  and  champion,  none  the  less  he  was 
conspicuously  the  child  of  his  times,  just  as  were  the  other  prophets  in  their 
days.  Had  not  the  nation  fallen  and  Israel  been  led  away  to  Babylon,  we  may 
be  sure  that  neither  Deutero-Isaiah  nor  any  other  prophet  would  have  con- 


-17- 


terpretation  of  religion,  a  new  and  altogether  different  conception 
of  revelation  should  gradually  come  into  existence.    The  Torah 

ceived  of  this  doctrine.  But  not  only  he,  but  all  who  held  this  same  view  and 
interpreted  Judaism  in  the  same  way,  and  in  fact  the  whole  movement  itself, 
were  the  products  of  their  times  and  conditions.  And  their  attitude  was  not  at 
all  materialistic  nor  time-serving.  They  had  a  real,  natural  and  well  worked 
out  philosophy  of  God  and  life  and  religion  in  general,  and  Judaism  in  par- 
ticular, in  this  doctrine  of  divine  fatherhood  and  human  brotherhood  and 
Israel's  mission. 

Nor  was  theirs  at  all  a  philosophy  or  policy  of  assimilation.  Their  con- 
ception of  universalism  was  founded,  not  upon  the  principle  of  obliteration 
of  national,  racial,  cultural  or  even  religious  differences,  but  solely  upon  the 
principle  of  world-wide  recognition  of  the  principles  of  divine  fatherhood  and 
human  brotherhood  and  common  worship  of  the  one,  true  God.  That  theirs 
was  no  program  of  assimilation  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  they  insisted  upon 
a  peculiar,  distinctive  and  separative  role  for  Israel  in  this  great  scheme  of 
universalism;  Israel  could  discharge  its  God-imposed  mission  only  by  remain- 
ing distinctly  Israel,  and  thus  raising  all  the  nations  to  its  height  of  knowledge 
and  belief,  not  by  submerging  and  extinguishing  itself  among  the  nations. 
And  it  is  proved  even  more  concretely  by  the  fact  that  just  in  Babylon  Israel 
has  ever,  even  unto  the  present  day,  maintained  its  separate  existence,  did 
not  assimilate  with  the  nations  and  disappear,  but  actually  continued  as  the 
real  stronghold  of  Jewish  spiritual  life  and  doctrine,  even  in  contradistinction 
to  Palestine,  for  over  fifteen  hundred  years,  until  the  tide  of  civilization 
moved  westward,  not  to  Palestine,  but  to  northern  Africa  and  Europe.  We 
know  too  little  of  the  life  and  history  of  these  Babylonian  Jews  to  adequately 
measure  all  the  influences  that  determined  the  course  of  evolution  of  Judaism 
and,  in  time,  produced  a  clear-cut  and  separative  orthodoxy  and  ritualism 
among  them.  None  the  less  we  must  recognize  this  principle  of  universalism 
at  work  among  them,  and  that  the  product  thereof  was  much  that  was  spirit- 
ual and  at  the  same  time  distinctly  Jewish. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  must  realize  that  the  growing  longing  on  the  part 
of  many  for  the  restored  and  purified  nation,  and  the  development  of  the  doc- 
trine of  holiness,  "peculiarly  sacred  to  God,"  was  an  equally  natural  and  com- 
prehensible outcome  of  the  evolution  of  the  religion.  When  permission  was 
given  to  return  to  Palestine,  the  people  had  perforce  to  make  choice  of  their 
future  course;  had  to  declare  concretely  their  adherence  to  one  or  the  other 
interpretation  of  Judaism  and  of  the  function  of  the  Jewish  people,  whether 
chosen  by  God  to  be  His  witnesses  to  mankind,  equally  God's  children,  or 
chosen  to  be  His  only  servants  and  worshippers,  while  He,  in  turn,  would  be 
their  own,  peculiar  deity.  That  the  majority,  apparently,  chose  the  course 
of  universalism,  is  not  surprising.  It  was  the  easier  course  and  demanded  less 
sacrifice.  Yet,  for  all  this,  it  was  not  the  less  idealistic  and  sublime.  But 
equally,  too,  the  sublimity  of  the  faith  and  idealism  of  the  returning  exiles 
can  not  be  overestimated.     Probably,  too,  many  believed  in  the  doctrine  of 


-18- 


was  completed  by  the  incorporation  of  the  older,  prophetic,  didac- 
tic-historical writings  with  the  new  Priestly  Code.   The  resultant 

nationalism  and  national  religion  and  holiness,  but  for  one  reason  or  another 
did  not  enroll  among  the  returning  exiles.  Their  reasons  must  have  been  too 
manifold  to  even  conjecture.  Not  unlikely  their  influence  upon  the  subsequent 
evolution  of  Babylonian  Judaism  was  considerable. 

It  is  interesting  and  significant  to  realize  that  an  almost  parallel  condi- 
tion obtains  in  Judaism  to-day.  It  dates  from  that  moment  in  the  last  century 
when  the  ghetto  walls  of  Europe  were  thrown  down  and  the  Jew  became  a 
citizen,  theoretically  at  least,  of  the  nation  in  which  he  lived.  Theoretically 
he  was  free  to  determine  his  course  of  conduct  and  the  future  evolution  of 
his  Jewish  life  and  religion.  In  the  ghetto,  under  repressive  and  oppressive 
laws  he  had  no  such  freedom;  he  was  compelled  to  live  within  himself,  to  con- 
fine himself  to  the  study  of  his  own  law  and  the  practice  of  his  religion.  That, 
in  a  way,  he  was  content,  we  know.  But  now  that  a  new  world  and  new  oppor- 
tunities were  suddenly  opened,  and  he  was  bidden  to  choose,  he  found  himself, 
theoretically,  obliged  to  decide  between  two,  or  possibly  three,  alternatives. 
He  might  accept  the  proffered  invitation  and  become  a  citizen;  just  because 
of  his  manifold,  centuries-long  experience,  a  kind  of  cosmopolite  and  uni- 
versalist,  even  though  at  the  same  time  a  citizen  of  his  own  nation  in  the  truest 
and  highest  sense.  Or  he  might  reject  the  invitation,  and,  instead,  continue 
of  his  own  free  will  the  life  that  he  had  been  compelled,  by  external  forces, 
to  live  all  these  years.  Or  finally,  he  might  step  forth  from  his  ghetto,  but 
refuse  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  nation  in  which  he  lived,  and  instead,  seek 
to  re-establish  the  old  Jewish  nation  in  Palestine,  just  as  the  exiles  had  done 
twenty-four  hundred  years  before.  What  though  the  task  was  infinitely 
more  difficult  than  then,  and  seemed  to  very  many  almost  futile;  none  the  less 
it  was,  theoretically,  a  legitimate  alternative. 

Practically  the  matter  worked  itself  out  very  simply.  Naturally  the 
majority,  enthused  by  the  beauty  of  the  ideal  of  freedom  and  universal 
brotherhood,  so  strongly  emphasized  in  the  early  half  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  accepted  the  invitation  wholeheartedly  and  unquestioningl}-,  re- 
joiced in  their  new  citizenship  and  in  their  opportunities  for  usefulness,  knowl- 
edge and  culture,  and  made  the  most  thereof.  The  result  has  been,  to  make 
a  long  story  short,  our  Reform  Judaism.  Its  position,  in  one  sense,  is  largely 
that  of  Deutero-Isaiah  and  those  who  shared  his  views,  a  lofty  conception 
of  the  doctrine  of  universalism  and  of  Israel's  peculiar  role,  not  as  assimilated, 
but  as  distinct  and  separate,  God's  witnesses  unto  mankind. 

Others,  largely  unconsciously,  and  largely,  too,  through  force  of  circum- 
stance, because  opportunities  for  freedom  were  not  fully  presented,  and 
repressive  restrictions  were  not  completely  removed,  or  were  speedily  renewed, 
chose,  or  were  forced  to  choose,  to  continue  their  former  ex  stence,  with  only 
slight  modification. 

The  possibility  of  a  third  choice  occurred  at  first  to  very  few.  Only 
slowly,  as  the  glamor  of  freedom  faded  somewhat,  and,  also,  as,  after  the 


—19— 

work,  our  present  Pentateuch,  soon  acquired  a  peculiar  sanctity 
and  authority  in  Judaism.  From  then  on  the  Law  became  the 
guide  of  all  Jewish  life  and  worship.  Day  by  day  the  tradition 
found  more  general,  unquestioned  and  literal  acceptance,  that 
the  Torah,  i.  e.,  the  Pentateuch,  had  been  divinely  revealed  to 
Moses,  and  constituted,  therefore,  the  eternal,  unchangeable, 
all-sufhcient  law  for  all  Israel.  Direct  revelation  was  now  alto- 
gether a  thing  of  the  past.     The  great,  eternal  revelation  had 

partial  taste  of  freedom,  granted  for  a  moment  to  those,  compelled  finally 
to  make  the  second  choice,  had  made  the  renewed  oppression  and  persecu- 
tion all  the  more  unendurable,  did  the  realization  dawn  that,  theoretically  at 
least  there  was  possibility  of  a  third  choice.  Only  a  few  realized  it  early, 
Moses  Hess  and  one  or  two  more  (Cf.  Gotth^W, Zionism).  Only  since  the  reac- 
tion of  political  anti-Semitism  set  in  throughout  Europe,  with  its  accompany- 
ina  philosophy  of  racial  nationalism,  has  the  realization  of  this  third  possi- 
bility become  strong.  Zionism  is  the  result.  It  is  a  revival  of  the  old  na- 
tional-religious ideal  and  philosophy,  with,  however,  far  less  emphasis  laid 
upon  the  religious,  and  far  more  upon  the  purely  national  and  cultural,  ele- 
ments. The  idea  of  national  "holiness"  is  once  more,  though  perhaps  not 
consciously,  the  watchword  of  Zionism. 

If  the  ideal  of  Zionism  should,  under  God's  providence,  ever  be  attained, 
undoubtedly  it  will  be  only  the  small  minority  of  Jews,  or  even  of  Zionists, 
that  will  return  to  the  land  of  their  fathers  and  share  actively  in  the  up- 
building of  the  new  Jewish  state.  The  vast  majority  will  surely,  for  mamfold 
reasons,  remain  in  their  present  homes,  bound  to  their  brethren  in  Palestine 
and  throughout  the  world  by  close  and  indissoluble  ties,  yet  at  the  same  time 
proud,  loyal  and  helpful  citizens  of  the  nation  in  which  they  live.  Nor 
will  it  be  mere  materialism  and  lack  of  idealism  that  will  hold  them  where 
they  are  Possibly,  too,  the  real  center  of  Jewish  life  and  culture  and  religious 
practice  may  be,  not  at  all  in  Palestine,  but,  as  at  present,  in  Europe,  or  even 
in  America.  And  the  future  of  Judaism,  particularly  Judaism  as  a  religion 
may  continue  in  the  hands,  not  of  returning  nationalists,  but  of  the  Jews  ot 

the  western  continents.  r     ,         ■  i 

No  comment  is  necessary;  in  fact  it  would  be  out  of  place  in  a  purely 
objective,  historical  discussion.  But  at  least  it  is  interesting  and  more 
than  interesting,  to  realize  that  present-day  conditions  are  largely  a  replica 
of  those  of  twenty-four  hundred  years  ago,  and  that,  despite  the  adverse  claims 
of  adherents  of  opposite  schools.  Reform  Judaism  and  Orthodoxy  and  Zion- 
ism are  all  equally  natural  and  logical,  though  to  a  certain  extent  contra- 
dictory and  incompatible,  development  in  Judaism,  all  three  the  legitimate 
and  even  necessary  proJucts  of  religious  historical  evolution  "f^--  ^od^s 
providence,  which,  we  maintain,  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  Judaism. 


—20— 

been  through  Moses^  Prophetic  revelation  was  of  secondary 
importance  and  individualistic  and  personal  in  character. 
The  prophets  were  now  regarded  as  mere  inspired  individuals, 
rather  than  as  successive  links  in  the  great  chain  of  Israel's 
religious  and  spiritual  unfolding.  And  the  nature  of  their 
inspiration  and  communion  with  God  was  different  from,  and 
far  inferior  to,  that  of  Moses.  Their  words  merely  amplified 
the  original  revelation  through  Moses  in  a  few  minor  points. 
Their  great  task,  according  to  this  new  conception  of  revelation, 
had  been,  not  to  proclaim  new  truths,  but  merely  to  rebuke 
sinning  and  faithless  Israel,  and  recall  it  to  its  allegiance  to 
its  God  and  its  observance  of  the  ancient,  sacred  law.  Every- 
thing had  been  revealed  by  God  to  Israel  through  one  man, 
Moses,  in  one  single  lifetime.  And  because  of  this  conception, 
the  real,  prophetic  principle  of  continuous  revelation  through 
history  was  forgotten  and  ceased  to  be  understood.  The  Law 
contained  everything  for  Israel,  if  not  literally,  then  at  least  by 
implication.  Revelation  was  final  and  complete  in  the  Torah, 
and  its  content  there  might  neither  be  added  to  nor  subtracted 
from.  The  interpretation  and  expansion  of  the  law  by  various 
and  devious  methods  of  hermeneutics  now  took  the  place  of 
pre-exilic,  prophetic  revelation  completely.  And  slowly,  through 
the  centuries,  the  vast  body  of  oral  law  grew  up  and  expanded, 
and  the  legalistic  literature  was  created,  theMishnah,  theTosefta, 
the  Talmud  and  the  other  minor  works  and  later  codes.  The 
oral  law  was  conceived  of  as  also  of  divine  origin  and  authority, 
equal,  or  almost  equal,  to  the  Torah  itself;  as  indirect  and  un- 
mediated  revelation,  as  it  were,  yet  equally  binding  upon  the 
people.  And  as  the  Torah  came  in  time  to  be  regarded  as  almost 
supersacred  and  transcendental,  the  oral  law  took  its  place  in 
the  life  of  the  people,  regulating  their  daily  conduct  and  worship. 
The  Torah  itself  was  remote,  holy,  taboo,  inviolable.  And  such 
it  has  been  ever  since  in  Judaism;  in  Orthodox  Judaism,  certainly; 
in  Reform  Judaism,  still  to  a  large  extent\ 


*  Cf.  Kohler  in  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  VI,  607f.;  X,  397f. 

*  Cf.    Kohler,  Grundriss   einer   systematischen   Theologie   des  Judentums 
auf  geschichtlicher  Grundlage,  28-37. 


—21— 
II 

BIBLICAL   SCIENCE   AND   JUDAISM 

During  the  last  two  centuries,  a  new  movement  in  the 
study  and  interpretation  of  the  Bible  has  begun,  commonly 
known  as  Biblical  Criticism.  The  name  is  rather  unfortunate 
since  "criticism"  is  to  most  people  a  word  of  negative  connota- 
tion. To  the  popular  mind,  Biblical  Criticism  represents  a  dan- 
gerous and  destructive  tendency  in  Bible  study,  the  aim  of  which 
is  to  pick  the  Bible  to  pieces,  to  deny  all  its  truth,  sanctity  and 
religious  value,  and  to  undermine  all  the  foundations  of  re- 
ligious belief  and  practice.  Such  a  conception  is  altogether 
ignorant  of  the  true  nature  and  purpose  of  Biblical  Criticism. 
Its  sole  aim  is  to  discover  all  the  truth  about  the  Bible,  just 
because  the  Bible  is  the  wonderful  book  it  is.  It  seeks  to  learn 
all  it  can  about  the  way  in  which  the  Bible  came  into  being,  the 
periods  in  which  its  various  books  and  parts  were  composed,  the 
conditions  affecting  their  composition  and  the  purpose  for  which 
they  were  written,  and  the  manifold  ways  in  which  they  have 
been  interpreted.  In  fnany  cases,  too,  where  the  original  He- 
brew text  has  been  corrupted  through  generations  and  centuries 
of  more  or  less  unskillful  and  inexact  copying  by  hand,  or 
through  other  equally  potent  and  comprehensible  causes, 
Biblical  Criticism  seeks,  and  with  remarkable  success,  to  restore 
the  original  text.  In  all  this  work  it  follows  strictly  scientific 
methods,  bases  itself  upon  the  exact  principles  of  logic,  and  on 
the  whole,  with  the  exception  of  the  vagaries  of  a  few  extreme 
enthusiasts,  has  worked  out  its  conclusions  along  safe  and  con- 
servative lines.  For  this  reason  the  term,  Biblical  Science, 
would  seem  immeasurably  superior  to,  and  more  just  than. 
Biblical  Criticism. 

Biblical  Science,  ''as  a  science,  particularly  in  its  relation 
to  the  Pentateuch,  may  be  said  to  have  begun,  systematically, 
with  Astruc's  "Conjectures"  in  1753^  But  already  from  about 
the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  or  even  earlier,  vague 
beginnings  had  been  made  and  hazy  conjectures  advanced  in 
the   writings   of   Carlstadt,    Hobbes,   de   la    Peyrere.    Spinoza, 


*  Cf.  Carpenter  and  Harford,  The  Composition  of  the  Hexateuch,  S3flF. 


—22— 

Simon,  Le  Clerc  and  others^  Even  five  or  six  centuries  before 
this,  Yitzchaki  (982-1057)  had  held  that  Gen.  XXXVI  must 
have  been  written  during  the  reign  of  Jehosaphat^  And  Abra- 
ham ibn  Ezra  (1092-1167),  while  rejecting  this  hypothesis, 
hinted  nevertheless  at  twelve  significant  contradictions  and 
anachronisms  in  the  text  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  implied  that 
whoever  could  understand  the  mystery  of  these  twelve,  would 
understand  the  truth,  which,  however,  he  implied,  was  of  such 
character  as  to  forbid  popular  presentation'.  Even  before  Ibn 
Ezra,  and  frequently  quoted  by  him,  Moses  ibn  Gikatilla  had 
begun  the  purely  historical  interpretation  of  the  Prophets  and 
the  Hagiographa,  and  had  advanced,  among  other  things,  the 
hypothesis  that  the  last  part  of  Isaiah  was  the  product  of  the 
period  of  the  second  Temple,  and  that  certain  Psalms,  partic- 
ularly XLII,  CXXXVII  and  the  last  two  verses  of  LI,  were 
written,  not  by  David,  but  by  Jewish  exiles  in  Babylon\  In 
fact,  it  would  not  be  at  all  amiss  to  assert  that  modern  Biblical 
Science  had  its  real  beginning  with  Saadia  (892-942)S  in  his 
system  of  Biblical  interpretation  according  to  the  peshat^,  or 
simple,  literal  meaning,  as  opposed  to  the  Midrashic  and  al- 
legorical exegesis,  that  obtained  up  to  his  time.  And  the  real 
foundations  of  Biblical  Science  were  laid  in  the  grammatical  and 
lexicographical  works  of  such  Jewish-Arabic  scholars  as  Saadia 
himself,  Menachem  ibn  Saruk,  Dunash  ibn  Labrat,  Judah 
ibn  Hayyug,  Abu  '1  Walid  Merwan  ibn  Janah,  and  the  Kimchis\ 
In  other  words,  modern  Biblical  Science  is  actually  the  out- 
growth of  the  Biblical  studies  of  mediaeval  Jewish  scholars, 
who  believed  implicitly  that,  to  be  rightly  understood,  the  Bible 
must  be  studied  and  interpreted  along  strictly  scientific  and 
rational  lines. 

But  while  thus  positing  the  principle  of  scientific  investiga- 
tion of  the  Bible,  and  developing  the  preliminary  studies  of 
Hebrew  philology  along  scientific  lines,  these  mediaeval  Jewish 


^  Op.  cit.  36ff.  ^  Cf.  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  VI,  623. 

'  Commentary  to  Dt.  I,  3,  and  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  VI,  520-524. 
*  Op.  cit.  V,  666f.  ■*  Op.  cit.  X,  579ff. 

"  Cf.  Bacher  in  op.  cit.  Ill,  166  and  X,  582f.,  and  Lauterbach  in  op. 
cit.  IX,  652f. 

^  Cf.  Bacher  in  op.  cit.  VI,  69f. 


-23- 


scholars  could  scarcely  anticipate  into  what  channels  and  to 
what  conclusions  their  work  must  eventually  lead.  Abraham 
ibn  Ezra  had  dimly  realized  this,  as  is  clear  from  his  remark 
about  "the  mystery  of  the  twelve."  But  apparently  even  he, 
bold  scholar  though  he  was,  hesitated  to  pursue  the  study  along 
scientific  lines  to  its  logical  ends,  or  even  to  clearly  formulate 
in  his  own  mind  the  logical  inference  from  this  "mystery  of  the 
twelve." 

For  in  a  way  the  one  all-important,  though  largely  negative 
conclusion  of  Biblical  Science  is  that,  contrary  to  the  traditional 
Jewish  view,  the  Torah  or  Pentateuch  is  not  the  work  of  one 
man,  Moses,  but  of  many  men,  living  at  various  periods  in 
Israel's  early  history.  It  represents  the  results  of  literary 
activity  in  Israel,  extending  over  a  period  of  about  six  or  seven 
hundred  years,  from  about  1000  B.  C,  or  a  little  later,  to  ap- 
proximately 400  or  300  B.  C.  It  can  therefore  not  be,  in  an 
absolutely  literal  sense,  the  divinely  revealed  word  of  God\ 
This  conclusion  is  based  upon  an  almost  overwhelming  mass  of 
evidence,  and  is  now  generally  accepted,  except  by  extreme 
conservative  and  orthodox  scholars. 

But  this  much  was,  after  all,  merely  negative  work;  it 
consisted  chiefly  in  disproval  and  repudiation  of  traditional 
beliefs  and  theories  about  the  Bible  and  its  various  books,  told, 
in  short,  what  the  Pentateuch  and  the  entire  Bible  are  not, 
and  how  they  might  not  be  interpreted  historically  and  scien- 
tifically. The  beginning  of  every  science,  and  in  fact  of  every 
new  and  significant  work,  is  in  criticism,  negation  and  refuta- 
tion of  outgrown  beliefs  and  hypotheses,  in  tearing  out  and 
pulling  down  and  clearing  away,  in  order  to  build  up  and  to 
plant'.  Thus  far  the  term.  Biblical  Criticism,  in  its  usual 
negative  connotation,  was  fully  justified.  True,  in  refuting  the 
traditional  views  of  Biblical  authorship  and  interpretation, 
Biblical  Criticism  did  arrive  at  certain  new,  and,  in  a  sense, 
positive  conclusions,  chiefly  as  to  the  authorship  and  dates  of 
various  portions  of  the  Bible.  But  even  this  was  only  preliminary 
work,    and    incidental    to,    and    complementary    of,    the    more 


^  Cf.  McCurdy  in  op.  cit.  Ill,  178. 
'  Jer.  I,  10. 


-24— 


fundamental  and  negative  work  of  denial  and  refutation.  Only 
in  recent  years  has  the  more  positive  and  constructive  side  of 
the  work  come  clearly  to  the  fore  and  become  fully  and  rightly 
comprehended.  Here  Biblical  Criticism  ceases  and  Biblical 
Science  begins. 

Positive  Biblical  Science  may  be  said  to  have  begun  with 
the  epoch-making  work  of  Professor  Heinrich  Ewald,  The 
History  of  Israel}  Since  then  the  science  has  developed  steadily 
and  systematically.  Among  its  foremost  pioneers  were  Kuenen, 
Noldeke,  Wellhausen,  Robertson  Smith,  Stade,  Driver  and  many 
others*.  In  recent  years  the  able  and  earnest  workers  in  this 
field  have  become  too  numerous  for  mention  here.  As  the 
result  of  their  faithful  labors,  and  with  the  help  of  extra-Biblical 
material  from  the  fields  of  Semitics,  Egyptology,  Archaeology 
and  Comparative  Religion,  the  history  of  Israel  in  the  Biblical 
period  has  been  reconstructed  so  radically  and  convincingly, 
that  today  we  view  in  a  new  and  positive  light  the  rise  and 
growth  of  the  people,  Israel,  and  of  its  various  institutions, 
political,  economic  and  religious,  the  whole  course  of  its  religious 
evolution,  and  its  significance  for  modern  religious  belief  and 
practice.    This  is  Biblical  Science. 

Naturally  so  tremendous  a  field  of  scientific  investigation 
offers  ample  room  for  wide  diversity  of  opinion  and  interpreta- 
tion. There  are  all  manner  of  scholars,  conservatives  and 
radicals;  enthusiasts  who  ride  rash  and  unfounded  hypotheses 
to  death,  like  the  late  lamented  Cheyne  in  his  last  years,  with 
his  wild  and  discredited  Yerachme'el  hypothesis;  reactionaries, 
like  Eerdmans,  whose  work,  nevertheless,  has  much  positive 
value,  in  that  it  lays  an  effective  check  upon  too  radical  and 
insufficiently  proved  hypotheses.  There  are  various  schools  of 
investigation  and  interpretation;  the  literary  school,  of  which 
Wellhausen  is  the  prototype;  the  so-called  Pan-Babylonian 
school  of  Winckler  and  Alfred  Jeremias;  the  closely  related  school 
of  comparative  mythologists,  of  whom  Stucken  is  possibly  the 
extreme  representative;  and  the  literary-historical  school,  that 
bases  itself  directly  upon   the  literary  school,   yet  in  its  work 


*  First  edition  in  1843;  cf.  Cheyne,  Founders  oj  Old  Testament  Criticism^ 
104ff.  *  Cheyne,  op.  cit. 


—25— 

makes  wider  application  of  recent  discoveries  in  Semitics, 
Egyptology,  Archaeology,  Comparative  Religion  and  Mythology 
and  other  kindred  sciences.  The  interests  and  work  of  this  last 
school  are  primarily  historical  rather  than  literary,  although 
its  close  kinship  to,  and  dependence  upon,  the  literary  school 
are  universally  recognized.  Among  its  members  may  be  found 
representatives  of  the  two  great  tendencies  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  history;  scholars  who,  like  Carlyle,  regard  history  pri- 
marily as  the  resultant  of  the  thoughts,  achievements  and 
personalities  of  great  individuals;  others  who,  like  Buckle,  re- 
gard the  individual,  heroic  in  person  and  achievement  though 
he  be,  as  a  smaller  factor  in  the  making  of  history  than  the  nation 
or  the  people  or  the  race  itself,  with  all  its  racial,  psychological 
and  spiritual  tendencies  and  endowments. 

Since  Biblical  Science  touches  closely  upon  the  vital  re- 
ligious beliefs  and  traditions  of  the  great  majority  of  the  civilized 
world,  and  since,  moreover,  mankind  is  naturally  conservative, 
traditional,  and  often  reactionary  in  matters  of  religion,  it  is 
but  natural  that  Biblical  Science  should  have  stirred  up  many 
opponents,  and  that  these  should  avidly  and  constantly  point 
to  these  many  and  wide  differences  of  method,  opinion  and 
interpretation  among  Biblical  scholars  as  the  best  evidence  that 
Biblical  Science  has  discredited  itself  and  proved  its  conclusions 
groundless.  It  is,  however,  premature  rejoicing.  These  very 
differences  are  the  final  safeguard  of  Biblical  Science;  they  make 
it  indeed  Biblical  Science  rather  than  Biblical  Criticism,  and 
assure  its  progress,  like  that  of  every  other  science,  along  sane, 
logical,  conservative  and  systematic  lines.  They  are  the  most 
convincing  evidence  that  its  general  conclusions,  accepted  by 
the  vast  majority  of  modern  scholars,  are  established  beyond 
possibility  of  doubt,  and  that  the  science  must  go  on  from 
strength  to  strength  and  from  knowledge  to  knowledge,  building 
up  an  ever  more  complete  and  comprehensive  knowledge  of 
Israel,  the  nation,  and  Judaism,  the  religion. 

That  the  course  of  evolution  of  this  new  Biblical  Science 
has  been  natural  and  logical  is  beyond  question.  First  the  old, 
out-lived  and  disintegrating  edifice  of  traditional  beliefs  and 
dogmas  was  cleared  away  by  the  patient,  searching  investiga- 
tions of  Biblical  Criticism,  and  a  new  foundation  for  a  loftier 


-26- 


and  grander  and  more  enduring  temple,  consecrated  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  God,  was  laid  on  the  ancient  site  by  the  literary  critics 
and  scholars.  On  this  foundation  of  the  literary  analysis  of  the 
Bible  the  new  and  positive  history  is  being  built,  the  new  and 
glorious  temple  of  the  true  knowledge  of  God  erected.  But 
what  is  the  significance  of  this  new  knowledge  for  Judaism, 
and  what  part  have  Jewish  builders  played  in  the  erection  of  this 
new  temple?  Certainly  its  significance  for  Judaism  must  be 
direct  and  far-reaching.  And  presumably  Jewish  scholars  have 
contributed  their  share,  and  a  large  share,  in  the  evolution  of 
this  new  and  important  science,  the  earliest  beginnings  of  which, 
as  has  been  shown,  were  made  within  their  ranks.  But  alas, 
such  is  not  the  case!  Modern  Jewish  scholars  have  given  almost 
nothing  to  the  development  of  the  new  science.  And  scarcely 
has  the  problem  of  its  actual  significance  for  Judaism  been 
boldly  faced  and  definitely  solved  by  Jewish  scholars  at  large! 

For  the  same  reason  that  Ibn  Ezra  hesitated  to  more  than 
merely  hint  at  "the  mystery  of  the  twelve"  and  its  import,  and 
felt  constrained  to  reject  with  scorn  Yitzchaki's  hypothesis  of 
the  date  of  Gen.  XXXVI,  so  the  scientific  study  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, with  its  one,  great,  obvious  conclusion  of  human,  non- 
Mosaic,  composite  authorship,  was  absolutely  taboo,  anathema, 
to  Jews  and  Judaism.  Spinoza,  it  is  true,  attempted  it  in  his 
Tractatiis  Theologico-politicus,  but  Spinoza  was  not  bound 
by  the  doctrines  of  Orthodox  Judaism.  To  all  Jews  since  Ezra, 
the  Torah  has  been  the  divinely  revealed  word  of  God,  sacred 
and  revered,  the  accepted  basis  of  all  Judaism.  And  the  scien- 
tific conclusion  of  non-Mosaic  and  composite  authorship  seemed 
necessarily  both  irreverent  and  heretical,  a  profanation  of  that 
which  Judaism  has  for  twenty-four  hundred  years  held  most 
sacred.  In  consequence,  since  Spinoza,  with  but  a  few  note- 
worthy exceptions*,  Jewish  scholars  have  contributed  nothing 


*  In  the  field  of  textual  criticism,  in  addition  to  Azariah  dei  Rossi  (1513- 
1578),  and  so  a  century  older  than  Spinoza  (cf.  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  X,  485), 
S.  D.  Luzzato  (1800-1865;  cf.  op.  cit.  VIII,  224f.)  and  Abraham  Geiger  (cf. 
below,  pp.  249f.)  may  be  mentioned.  Among  the  so-called  higher  critics  of  the 
Pentateuch,  Leopold  Zunz  (cf.  Hirsch,  in  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  XII,  699-704) 
and  M.  M.  Kalisch  (cf.  op.  cit.  VII,  420  and  Cheyne,  op.  cit.,  204-208)  are 
almost  the  only  notable  representatives  of  Judaism. 


-27— 


at  all  to  the  development  of  the  scientific  study  and  interpre- 
tation of  the  Pentateuch^  Some  Jewish  names  may  be  mentioned 
in  connection  with  the  modern  exegesis  of  the  extra-Penta- 
teuchal  books,  but  even  these  are  very  few.  And,  in  conse- 
quence, the  strange,  anomalous,  yet  altogether  natural  and 
comprehensible  condition  has  arisen,  that  the  Bible,  the  Book 
of  the  People  of  the  Book,  even  in  the  original  Hebrew,  is  now 
being  interpreted  scientifically  to  the  world,  and  consequently 
to  Jews  as  well,  by  non-Jewish  scholars,  and  interpreted  often 
in  a  non-Jewish,  and  occasionally  even  in  an  anti-Jewish  manner 
and  spirit.  It  is  indeed  one  of  the  most  striking  anomalies  of 
the  present  day. 

Nevertheless  this  scientific  interpretation  of  the  Bible, 
and  particularly  of  the  Pentateuch,  has  powerfully  affected 
modern  Jewish  belief  and  practice.  The  reform  movement  in 
Judaism,  it  has  been  often,  and  in  a  sense  correctly,  said,  began 
with  the  Mendelssohnian  translation  of  the  Bible  into  German^ 
This  certainly  helped  mightily  to  bring  the  Jew  forth  from  the 
narrow  confines  of  Ghetto  life  into  the  broad,  progressive,  intel- 
lectual and  spiritual  world\  In  a  moment,  as  it  were.  Reform 
Judaism  was  born,  the  offspring  of  ancient,  traditional  Judaism, 
reacted  upon  by  the  new  life,  culture  and  environment.  Ju- 
daism has  ever  been  a  religion  of  actual,  present-day  life,  almost 
as  much  the  product  of  contemporaneous  environment  as  of 
ancient  tradition  and  history.  Or,  perhaps  better  expressed, 
real  Judaism  has  always  been  the  resultant,  consciously  or  un- 
consciously on  the  part  of  its  adherents,  of  continuous  historic 
evolution,  crystallized  by  contemporaneous  environment  into  a 
present-day  religion  of  actual  life.  For  this  reason  largely  the 
Jew  has  always  been  the  most  adaptable  of  men,  has  found  it 
comparatively  easy  to  accommodate  himself  to  new  lands  and 
new  conditions  and  to  carry  his  religion  of  life  with  him  and 
adapt  it  to  his  ever  changing  environment,  and  still  maintain  it 
as  the  religion  of  life. 


*  Cf.  Bacher  in  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  III,  173f. 

*  Cf.  Philipson,  The  Reform  Movement  in  Judaism,  9  and  12-14. 
'  Cf.  Kayserling  in  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  VIII,  483. 


—28— 

Therefore  with  his  political  and  spiritual  emancipation  in 
the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  his  consequent 
participation  in  the  various  modern  educational  and  cultural 
movements,  with  his  insatiable  thirst  for  knowledge  and  the 
large  opportunities  to  acquire  knowledge,  with  schools,  colleges, 
universities  and  libraries  now  open  to  him,  the  Jew  could  not 
remain  unaffected  by,  nor  unresponsive  to,  the  teachings  of  the 
growing  Biblical  Science,  even  though,  as  yet,  he  hardly  dared 
contribute  actively  and  positively  thereto.  The  teachings  and 
tenets  of  Biblical  Criticism  were  in  the  air  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  cultured  and  thinking  people 
were  more  or  less  affected  thereby.  Much  of  the  prevailing 
atheism  and  agnosticism  of  that  period  were  the  result  of  the 
misunderstanding  and  wrong  application  of  the  Biblical  Criti- 
cism of  that  time. 

To  a  certain  extent,  though  in  an  altogether  different  way, 
Reform  Judaism  was  likewise  influenced  by  the  current  Biblical 
Criticism  of  the  middle  quarters  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
For  one  of  the  most  pronounced  external  manifestations  of  the 
reform  movement  in  Judaism  has  been  the  disregard  and  aban- 
donment of  many  ancient,  ceremonial  institutions,  even  some 
whose  observance  is  commanded  in  the  Torah,  and  is  not  due 
merely  to  rabbinical  expansion  of  Pentateuchal  commands. 
Such  laws  as  those  concerning  fringes\  mixtures  in  garments*, 
shaving  the  corners  of  the  head',  chalUzah*  and  many  others, 
conformity  to  which  is  in  no  wise  conditioned  by  the  non- 
existence of  the  Temple,  are  observed  today  by  few,  if  any, 
Reform  Jews.  Other  laws,  dependent  upon  the  existence  of  the 
Temple  and  the  survival  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  are  aban- 
doned of  necessity,  and,  for  the  most  part,  with  but  little  regret. 
In  practice,  at  least,  a  negative  principle  seems  to  determine  the 
attitude  of  Reform  Judaism  toward  the  laws  of  the  Torah.  In 
the  main,  only  those  laws  are  still  considered  binding  which 
have  a  positive  ethical  sanction  or  a  fundamental  spiritual, 
religious  value.  Other  laws  need  not  be,  and  as  a  rule,  are  not, 
observed.     A  few  laws,  negativ^e  in  character,  i.  e.,  laws  that 


'  Num.  XV,  38-41;  Dt.  XXII,  12.     »  Lev.  XIX,  27;  XXI,  5. 
*  Lev.  XIX,  19;  Dt.  XXII,  11.  *  Dt.  XXV,  5-10. 


—29— 

prohibit  some  positive  act,  as,  for  example,  many  of  the  laws 
dealing  with  forbidden  foods,  are  still  observed  by  some  con- 
servatives. But  even  such  negative  observance  is  becoming 
less.  More  and  more  a  sense  of  absolution  from  the  observance 
of  Biblical,  as  well  as  rabbinic  laws,  that  apparently  have  little 
or  no  spiritual  or  ethical  import  or  sanction,  and  in  consequence 
the  practical  abrogation  of  these  laws,  is  asserting  itself  in. 
Reform  Judaism.  This  attitude  could  hardly  have  developed, 
or  even  have  begun  to  develop,  without  at  least  tacit,  or  per- 
haps unconscious,  but  none  the  less  real,  recognition  during  the 
middle  quarters  of  the  nineteenth  century  of  the  principles  and 
conclusions  of  Biblical  Criticism. 

But  from  the  theoretical  standpoint,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  this  attitude  is  altogether  illogical,  particularly  on  the 
part  of  those  who  still  believe,  or  wish  to  believe,  in  the  divine 
origin  and  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Torah.  Laws  of  divine 
origin  can  not  be  abrogated  by  mere  considerations  of  expediency, 
or  even  of  outgrown  spiritual  or  ethical  value.  The  very  fact 
of  divine  origin  must  lend  to  even  the  apparently  most  trivial 
laws  positive,  spiritual  sanction.  The  first  logical  act  of  Reform 
Judaism,  therefore,  should  have  been  to  face  clearly  and  bravely 
the  very  difficult  and  delicate  question  of  the  historic  correct- 
ness of  the  tradition  of  the  divine  origin  and  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  Torah,  and  only  when  this  question  had  been  answered, 
after  mature  consideration,  with  an  unqualified  negative,  would 
the  next  step  have  been  justified,  namely,  the  determination  of 
the  proper  attitude  of  Reform  Judaism  toward  the  laws  of  the 
Torah,  and  the  abrogation  of  such  laws  as  had  been  outgrown. 
Until  the  Torah  had  been  proved  not  of  divine  origin  and 
Mosaic  authorship,  there  could,  logically,  be  no  right  nor  author-' 
ity  to  disregard  its  laws;  there  could  be  no  attitude  other  than 
that  of  strictest  Orthodoxy,  namely,  unquestioning  acceptance 
and  scrupulous  observance. 

That  some,  at  least,  of  the  pioneer  reformers  were  not  blind 
to  this  truth  is  certain.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that,  in  at- 
tempting to  justify  the  abrogation  of  certain  ceremonial  institu- 
tions, Samuel  Holdheim  gave  expression  to  the  significant  prin- 
ciple that  "the  spirit  of  the  age  is  also  a  revelation  of  God, 


—30— 

and  that  this  commanded  the  aboHtion  of  many  observances 
that  had  religious  sanction  at  one  time."^  Elsewhere  he  asserted 
that  "the  present  requires  a  principle,  that  shall  enunciate 
clearly  that  a  law,  even  though  divine,  is  potent  only  so  long 
as  the  conditions  and  circumstances  of  life,  to  meet  which  it 
was  enacted,  continue;  when  these  change,  however,  the  law 
also  must  be  abrogated,  even  though  it  have  God  for  its  author. 
For  God  Himself  has  shown  indubitably  that  with  the  change 
of  the  circumstances  and  conditions  of  life  for  which  He  once 
gave  these  laws,  the  laws  themselves  cease  to  be  operative,  that 
they  shall  be  observed  no  longer  because  they  can  be  observed 
no  longer  *  *  *  *  ^Yhe  present  age  and  its  guiding  principle, 
as  thus  formulated,  recognize  the  working  of  God  in  history; 
it  believes  truly  and  firmly  in  the  providential  guidance  of  the 
fortunes  of  mankind;  it  looks  upon  the  deeds  recorded  in  the 
history  of  mankind  as  the  deeds  of  God,  whereby  He  speaks 
as  clearly  as  He  ever  did;  a  particular  revelation  of  God  to  a 
single  person  is  dispensable  when  God  speaks  to  all  and  reveals 
His  will  to  all.'"'  In  this  declaration  Holdheim  seems  not  only 
to  have  rejected  entirely  the  orthodox  conception  of  revelation 
through  Moses  and  the  Torah,  but  also  to  have  unconsciously 
returned,  though  by  no  means  completely,  to  the  ancient,  pro- 
phetic conception.  But  the  problem  of  reform  seems  to  have  pre- 
sented itself  to  him  chiefly  in  its  negative  aspect.  His  main 
concern,  as  in  fact  that  of  all  early  Reform  Judaism,  seems  to 
have  been  the  abrogation  of  outgrown  laws,  rather  than  the 
determination  of  the  proper  guiding  principle  of  positive  reform 
and  progress.  It  is  true  that  he  did  show  some  appreciation  of 
the  positive  principle  in  his  declaration  about  the  God  of  history 
revealing  Himself  through  history,  and  in  just  this  respect  he 
approached  close  to  the  prophetic  conception  of  revelation. 
But  his  application  of  the  principle  was  almost  completely 
negative  and  limited. 

Still  less  logical  and  satisfactory  was  the  position  of  the 
Frankfort  Society  of  the  Friends  of  Reform,  and  others  with 
and  after  them,  who  shared  their  view,  that  the  true  solution 


*  Quoted  from  Philipson,  op.  cit.  13. 
'  Op.  cit.  180  note. 


-31- 


of  the  problem  of  reform  lay  in  the  repudiation  of  rabbinical 
law  and  literature  and  the  return  to  Mosaism,  i.  e.,  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Pentateuchal  laws  alone\  Not  only  did  this  move- 
ment fail  utterly  to  appreciate  the  real,  inward  truth  of  Judaism 
and  its  history,  as  Philipson  has  so  ably  shown,  but  it  likewise 
rested  upon  a  false  scientific  basis.  For  it  applied  the  principle 
of  scientific  investigation  to  the  rabbinical  portion  of  the  content 
of  orthodox  revelation,  with  the  negative  conclusion  that  the 
oral  law  was  not  of  divine  origin  and  consequently  no  longer 
binding.  But  it  failed,  or  refused,  to  apply  this  same  principle 
to  the  Torah.  Instead  it  insisted  unquestioningly  upon  the 
historical  correctness  of  the  tradition  of  Mosaic  revelation,  yet, 
at  the  same  time,  it  ventured  to  disregard  and  abrogate  various 
Pentateuchal  laws.     This  was  the  extreme  of  inconsistency. 

Far  more  thoroughgoing,  scholarly  and  convincing  was  the 
pronouncement  of  Abraham  Geiger,  that  "the  genius  of  the 
people  of  Israel  is  the  vehicle  of  revelation."''  Elsewhere  Geiger 
declared  revelation  to  be  "an  illumination  of  the  Jewish  genius 
by  the  Divine  Mind,  which  caused  the  whole  people  to  come 
nearer  the  everlasting  truth  than  any  other.  Judaism  is  not  a 
religion  given  by  one  man;  Israel's  God  is  not  called  the  God  of 
Moses,  or  of  Isaiah,  but  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  that  is, 
of  the  fathers  of  the  nation,  who  imparted  the  deep  powers  of 
religious  intention  and  inspiration  to  all  the  seers,  singers  and 
teachers,  the  framers  of  the  Jewish  religion."'  In  accordance 
with  this  principle,  Geiger  insisted  constantly  that  the  entire 
Bible,  including  the  Torah,  and  also  the  Talmud  and  all  Jewish 
literature,  must  be  studied  from  a  strictly  historical  standpoint. 
Judaism  is  essentially  a  historical  religion,  the  resultant  of  natural 
historical  evolution,  and  only  when  studied  and  expounded  from 
this  standpoint,  can  Judaism  be  rightly  understood*.     Far  more 


'  Op.  cit.  I79f. 

"^  Quoted  from  Hirsch  in  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  V,  584ff. 

'  Quoted  from  Kohler  in  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  X,  397. 

^  Cf.  in  particular,  Geiger's  articles,  "Das  Judenthum  unserer  Zeit  und 
die  Bestrebungen  in  ihm,"  in  his  Zeitschrift  fur  judische  Theologie,  I  (1835), 
2f.  and  11,  and  "Der  Boden  zur  Aussaat,"  in  his  Judische  Zeitschrift  fur 
Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  I  (1862),  1-9. 


—32- 


than  any  of  the  other  pioneer  reformers,  Geiger  appreciated  this 
principle  fully.  And,  almost  alone  among  them,'  he  conscien- 
tiously, boldly  and  unreservedly  gave  himself  to  the  scientific 
study  of  the  Bible,  and  particularly  of  the  history  of  the  original 
Hebrew  text  and  its  translations,  always  with  full  understanding 
of  the  significance  of  these  studies  for  the  reform  movement  in 
Judaism.  His  is  one  of  the  few  Jewish  names  to  which  we  may 
point  with  pride  among  the  founders  of  modern  Biblical  Science. 
His  chief  critical  work,  Urschrift  und  Uehersetzungen  der  Bibel^, 
is  still  today  of  prime  scientific  value. 

Since  Geiger,  however,  many,  if  not  most,  of  our  reform 
leaders  have  only  tacitly,  and  on  the  whole  rather  reluctantly, 
admitted  the  main  conclusions  of  Biblical  Science.  And  instead 
of  continuing  Geiger's  work  of  unfolding  the  significance  of  this 
developing  science  for  Reform  Judaism,  they  have,  for  one  reason 
or  another,  devoted  themselves  rather  to  what  is  generally  con- 
sidered the  practical  and  popular  side  of  the  work  of  reform. 
Many  today,  animated  by  the  so-called  current  neo-orthodoxy 
and  reaction  against  reform,  and  with  a  short-sighted  fear  of 
the  evident,  logical  conclusions,  even  pride  themselves  somewhat 
upon  having  assumed  an  attitude  toward  Biblical  Science, 
which  they  call  sane  and  conservative,  but  which  is  in  reality 
reactionary,  unscientific  and  illogical.  Like  the  ostrich,  which, 
unable  to  escape  its  pursuers,  hides  its  head  in  the  sand,  and, 
no  longer  actually  beholding  the  danger,  thinks  itself  safe,  so 
too,  these  present-day  "sane  and  conservative",  unprogressive 


'  As  has  been  stated,  Zunz,  too,  accepted  the  conclusions  of  Biblical 
Criticism  unreservedly,  and  even  himself  contributed  something  thereto 
(cf.  his  writings  in  the  Zeitschrift  der  deutschen  morgenl'andischenGesellschajt, 
XXVII,  669-689,  and  Gesammelte  Schriften,  I,  217-270).  But  Zunz  himself 
was  not  a  conscious  religious  reformer,  nor  even  in  full  sympathy  with  the 
purpose  and  tendencies  of  early  Reform  Judaism  (cf.  Ilirsch  in  Jewish  Ency- 
clopedia, XII,  699-704).  His  interest  in  Biblical  studies  was  purely  academic 
and  scientific.  And  while,  in  his  letters  to  David  Kaufmann,  he  did  give 
expression  to  the  significant  thoughts,  "opinions  on  books  arc  not  subject  to 
the  authority  of  religion,"  and  "why  do  they  not  inquire  whether  it  be  true 
or  false?  Miserable  men  they,  who  desire  not  to  be  disturbed"  (quoted  from 
op.  cit.  704),  none  the  less  he  did  not  feel  called  upon  to  discuss  the  import 
of  his  own  Biblical  studies  or  of  all  Biblical  Criticism  for  Judaism. 

'  Breslau,  1857. 


—33— 

progressives  believe  that  so  long  as  they  refuse  to  acknowledge 
the  validity  of  Biblical  Science,  or  even  to  admit  the  existence 
of  the  problems  which  Biblical  Science  labors  to  solve,  just  so 
long  neither  the  problems  themselves  nor  the  solution  offered  by 
Biblical  Science  exist,  either  for  them  or  for  Reform  Judaism 
at  large.  Others  seek  to  compromise,  and  would  harmonize  the 
old  traditional  belief  in  the  divine  origin  and  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Torah  with  the  dicta  of  Biblical  Science,  by  recourse 
to  an  artificial,  pragmatic  theology  and  frequent  reference  to 
Mysticism  and  tendencies  toward  Mysticism  in  the  latest  sys- 
tems of  philosophy,  particularly  those  of  Bergson  and  Eucken. 
Mysticism  is  a  term  altogether  justifiable  in  its  application  to 
that  which  is  as  yet  unknown,  or  which  may  be  eternally  un- 
knowable, yet  which  must  be  considered  in  theological  thought 
and  discussion;  but  in  its  misapplication  to  that  which  is,  or 
may  easily  be,  known  by  every  one,  even  themselves,  too  fre- 
quent reference  to  Mysticism  almost  indicates  insufficient 
intellectual  courage  and  faith.  Certainly  these  are  anomalous, 
silly,  fearsome  and  pitiful  attitudes  for  professed  leaders  of 
a  supposedly  progressive  movement. 

At  the  same  time  neither  they  nor  the  founders  and  early 
leaders  of  Reform  Judaism,  other  than  Geiger,  are  to  be  blamed 
too  greatly  for  their  inconsistency  and  lack  of  logic.  As  a  rule 
movements  like  Reform  Judaism  do  not  arise  and  develop 
along  the  lines  of  strict  logic.  They  are  far  oftener  the  result 
of  spiritual,  economic  or  cultural  needs  or  tendencies,  and  the 
logic  follows  later  in  the  inevitable  need  for  readjustment  and 
reestablishment  upon  a  truly  safe,  sane  and  philosophic  basis. 
For  this  reason  the  rise  of  Reform  Judaism  and  its  development 
up  to  the  present  day  accord  strictly  with  historical  principles. 
The  reform  movement  in  Judaism  was  a  historical  necessity. 
And  the  present  negative  attitude  toward  the  laws  of  the  Torah 
could  hardly  have  been  at  all  other  than  it  is.  But  while  admit- 
ting all  this,  we  must  recognize  too  that  the  early  leaders  of 
Reform  Judaism,  and  many  of  our  leaders  today,  did  and  do, 
in  their  virtual  abrogation  of  the  majority  of  the  Pentateuchal 
laws,  put  the  cart  before  the  horse,  and  were  and  are  distinctly 
illogical  and  inconsistent. 


-34- 


But  for  us  today  conditions  are  different.  Reform  Judaism 
is  now  well  established  and  its  program  of  work  and  line  of  future 
evolution  can  be  fairly  clearly  forseen.  For  us  the  work  of  read- 
justment and  of  logical  reestablishment  has  begun,  in  order  that 
the  future  development  may  proceed  smoothly  and  evenly  and 
along  definite,  positive  and  constructive  lines.  The  fact  of  the 
human,  composite  authorship  is  today  beyond  question,  and 
must  be  admitted,  even  though  grudgingly,  by  the  most  conserva- 
tive and  traditional  of  our  present-day  leaders  of  Reform  Ju- 
daism. And  the  majority  do  admit,  even  though  reluctantly, 
to  themselves  at  least,  and  very  many  to  their  congregations 
also,  the  fact  of  human,  composite  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
And  thus,  they  believe,  they  justify,  in  a  way  and  with  a  certain 
logic,  the  negative  attitude  which  Reform  Judaism  has  had, 
through  historical  necessity,  to  assume  toward  the  laws  of  the 
Torah.  But  it  must  be  admitted,  that  this  is,  like  the  first  posi- 
tion of  Biblical  Criticism,  at  best  purely  negative  work,  defining 
what  the  Torah  is  not  and  what  the  Bible  is  not,  and  what 
significance  and  binding  force  the  Biblical  laws  and  narratives 
need  not,  or  can  not,  have. 

But  in  this  negative  position,  which  Biblical  Science  on  its 
part  has  at  last  outgrown.  Reform  Judaism  can  not  longer  abide. 
Nor  can  we  remain  content  with  the  strange  anomaly  that  our 
Bible  should  be  investigated  and  expounded  scientifically, 
expounded  for  us  Jews  too,  only  by  non-Jewish  scholars,  and 
often  even  from  a  non-Jewish  standpoint  and  with  non-Jewish 
sympathy.  Biblical  Science  is  today  recognized  as  an  established 
and  legitimate  science,  and  the  significance  of  its  conclusions 
and  teachings  for  all  religious  belief  and  practice  is  becoming 
increasingly  understood.  More  and  more  practically  all  creeds 
and  denominations  today  are  being  compelled,  generally  against 
their  will,  to  notice  seriously,  and  take  definite  stand  in  regard  to, 
the  principles  and  teachings  of  Biblical  Science.  Usually  their 
first  position  is  wholly  negative  and  antagonistic.  But  as  the 
years  pass,  slowly  but  steadily  this  first  position  is  being  modified 
in  the  face  of  the  irrefutable  and  persistent  truths  which  Biblical 
Science  proclaims.  And  with  this  change  of  position,  more  and 
more  the  realization  is  dawning,  that  Biblical  Science  and  its 
teachings  are  not  at  all  negative  nor  dangerous  nor  destructive 


—35— 

of  true  religion  and  true  faith,  but  on  the  contrary  are  altogether 
positive,  helpful  and  constructive.  Old,  deep-rooted  errors, 
blinding  superstitions  and  falsely  accentuated  doctrines  are  being 
swept  away;  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  fundamental  and  vital 
principles  of  religious  life  and  faith;  and  the  path  is  being  pre- 
pared for  intelligent,  rational  and  progressive  observance  and 
practice.  More  and  more  this  truth  is  becoming  apparent,  an4 
religion  today  is  undergoing  a  noticeable  and  significant  trans- 
formation. 

But  no  more,  and  in  reality  far  less,  than  any  other  present- 
day,  progressive  religion  or  denomination,  can  Reform  Judaism 
refuse  to  take  cognizance  of  Biblical  Science,  or  shut  eyes  and 
ears  to  its  teachings.  If,  as  some  believe,  or  wish  to  believe, 
the  conclusions  of  Biblical  Science  be  not  true,  they  should  be 
refuted  by  competent  Jewish  scholars  and  their  falseness  proved, 
that  Judaism  may  be  left  free  to  develop  unhampered  by  their 
pernicious  influence.  But  in  such  case  Reform  Judaism  must 
logically  renounce  its  present  negative  attitude  toward  the  Torah 
and  its  laws,  and  revive  the  observance  of  all  the  divinely  or- 
dained Biblical  statutes. 

But  if  the  main  conclusions  of  Biblical  Science  are  correct 
and  can  not  be  refuted,  and  more  and  more  it  is  becoming  evident 
that  such  is  the  case,  then  it  is  indeed  high  time  that  Reform 
Judaism  advance  beyond  its  negative  attitude  of  tacit  denial 
of  the  divine  origin  and  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Torah,  and 
consequent  justification  of  its  disregard  of  those  laws  which  do 
not  accord  with  its  philosophy  of  life,  religion  and  ethics;  it  is 
high  time  that  it  begin  to  assume  a  positive  attitude,  that  it  ask 
itself,  "If  the  Torah  be  not,  as  our  ancestors  believed,  of  divine 
origin  and  Mosaic  authorship,  and  therefore  all  the  laws  of  the 
Torah  be  not  literally  binding  upon  us,  nor  the  Pentateuchal 
account  of  the  beginnings  of  our  religion  necessarily  literally 
true,  what  then  is  the  actual,  early  history  of  Israel;  what  the 
real  origin  and  first  development  of  our  religion;  what  the 
positive  significance  of  the  Torah,  its  narratives  and  its  laws, 
for  Judaism  today  and  in  the  future?'"  Surely  we  can  not  disre- 

*  Cf .  Kohler,  Grundriss  einer  systematischen  Theologie  des  Judentums  auf 
geschichtlicher  Grundlage,  34ff. 


-36- 


gard  the  Torah  entirely,  nor  reject  our  Bible  completely.  Even 
though  we  do  know  that  it  is  not  what  tradition  proclaimed  it, 
for  us  it  is  still  the  Bible,  the  Book,  our  Book,  and  we  are  still 
the  People  of  the  Book.  And  from  its  inspiring  pages  we  not 
only  can  and  must  still  gather  eternal ,  ethical  truth  and  knowledge, 
but  also,  if  it  be  rightly  understood  and  interpreted,  as  Biblical 
Science  now  teaches,  we  may  learn  from  it  just  how  our  ancestors 
arrived  at  all  this  ethical  and  spiritual  truth,  how  they  came  to 
know  God  at  first  just  a  little,  and  how,  as  the  years  and  cen- 
turies passed,  this  knowledge  of  God  grew  and  grew;  how,  even 
though  it  was  not  given  to  them  either  to  behold  God's  face  or 
to  know  the  fullness  of  His  way,  yet  little  by  little  they  did  come 
to  see  His  back  and  hear  His  voice  and  learn  His  true  name, 
and  step  by  step  He  did  reveal  to  them  through  His  servants, 
the  prophets,  and  through  the  course  of  their  long  and  won- 
drous and  God-guided  history,  as  much  of  His  way  as  it  has  been 
given  to  man  thus  far  to  know.  This  is  the  history  of  our  religion, 
our  Judaism.  And  a  part,  and  a  most  significant  part,  of  this 
history  we  may  learn  from  this  new  study  of  the  Bible.  We  still 
believe  in  God's  self-revelation  through  history,  through  the 
history  of  the  past,  rightly  understood  and  interpreted,  and 
through  the  history  of  the  present.  Reform  Judaism,  following 
Geiger,  adheres  firmly  to  the  principle  of  historic  evolution,  and 
regards  itself  as  the  last  step,  up  to  the  present  day,  in  the 
great  historic  evolution  that  began  with  the  very  moment  of 
Israel's  birth  as  a  people,  or,  even  before  that,  in  all  the  events 
and  circumstances  antecedent  and  preparatory  thereto,  and  has 
continued  through  the  successive  periods  of  Jewish  history  and 
Jewish  life  down  to  the  present  day,  and  will  continue  through 
the  present  day  into  the  great  infinite  tomorrow  of  life  and 
history. 

For  just  this  reason  Reform  Judaism  may  no  longer  stand 
still  in  its  purely  negative  attitude,  and  refuse,  through  its  reputed 
leaders,  to  either  affirm  or  deny  the  conclusions  of  Biblical 
Science.  To  correctly  and  fully  understand  our  Judaism  of 
today,  and  to  properly  and  constructively  guide  and  further 
its  future  evolution,  as  far  as  it  lies  within  our  power  so  to  do, 
we  must  know  all  its  past  history  aright,  and  in  as  great  detail 


-37- 


as  possible.  And  above  all,  we  must  know  the  history  of  our 
people  and  our  religion  as  Biblical  Science  reconstructs  it  for 
us,  i.  e.,  as  our  Bible,  truly  interpreted,  teaches  it  to  us,  in  the 
earliest  period  of  its  origin  and  first  development,  when  it  was 
just  beginning  to  unfold  itself,  to  formulate  its  eternal,  wondrous 
message  of  ethical  monotheism  and  human  brotherhood,  was 
preparing  to  assume  its  unique  and  glorious  position  in  human 
history  as  the  world's  teacher  of  religion,  the  witness  unto  man- 
kind of  God's  truth,  the  bearer  unto  man  of  the  knowledge  of 
God's  life  on  earth. 

But  for  just  this  end,  that  we  may  know  our  religion  and 
our  whole  history  aright,  we  must  have  our  own  Jewish  Biblical 
scientists,  who  will  reconstruct  and  interpret  this  history  from 
a  positive  Jewish  standpoint,  in  accordance  with  our  historic 
Jewish  consciousness  and  with  full  appreciation  of  the  principle 
of  historic  continuity  in  Judaism.  For  us  this  science  is  far  more 
vital  than  for  any  others.  It  is  our  literature,  our  history  and 
our  religion  that  are  the  objects  of  its  investigation.  And  we 
must  face  the  issue  squarely  and  work  out  for  ourselves  the  full, 
scientific  knowledge  of  the  origin  and  history  of  our  people  and 
our  religion.  Our  procedure  must  be  conservative,  reverent  and 
sympathetic,  with  tender  consideration  for  time-consecrated 
tradition.  As  far  as  possible  we  must  guard  against  all  possible 
errors  and  too  hasty  or  radical  conclusions.  But  if  many  of 
our  conclusions  be  untraditional,  as  they  needs  must  be,  none  the 
less  we  must  have  implicit  faith  in  them,  and  bravely  work  them 
out  and  apply  them  in  their  full  significance.  We  must  have 
full  faith  in  ourselves,  and  others  will  then  have  faith  in  us, 
that  we  are  not  destroying  the  foundations  of  our  Judaism,  as 
many  short-sighted  and  timorous  traditionalists  fear.  We  are 
not  questioning  the  existence  of  God,  nor  denying,  nor  abrogat- 
ing a  single  one  of  the  vital,  spiritual  truths  of  Judaism.  We 
are  merely  perfecting  our  knowledge  of  Judaism,  our  knowledge 
of  the  way  in  which  our  ancestors  and  our  fathers  and  we  our- 
selves came  to  know  what  we  do  know  about  God  and  the  life 
He  has  ordained  that  man  should  live.  We  are  returning,  as  it 
were,  to  the  conception  of  revelation  and  of  religion  that  was 
held  by  the  prophets;  are  interpreting  all  our  history,  from  its 


—38— 

beginning  unto  the  present  day,  in  the  same  spirit  as  they  in- 
terpreted it;  are  conscious  of  the  God  of  our  fathers  revealing 
Himself  to  us  still  to-day,  and  to  all  mankind  throughout  eter- 
nity, as  He  did  to  Israel  of  old.  And  we  too,  as  the  prophets, 
may  feel  His  spirit  upon  us.  His  voice  speaking  through  us,  and 
His  message  of  the  ages  upon  our  tongues.  God  in  history, 
in  the  history  of  the  present  and  the  future,  as  well  as  of  the  past; 
God  eternally  revealing  Himself  and  His  purpose  unto  mankind, 
and  we  the  agents  of  His  revelation,  the  people  whom  He  chose 
to  be  His  witnesses  and  His  messengers  unto  mankind.  His 
prophet-people,  who  must  interpret  His  revelation  unto  our 
brothers.  His  children  also,  all  mankind — this  is  the  true  message 
of  Judaism,  if  only  we  can  open  our  eyes  and  understand  and 
proclaim  it.  And  in  this  spirit  of  truth  and  progress  and  con- 
tinuous revelation  and  historic  evolution,  that  are  the  real, 
basic  principles  of  our  religion,  we  must  study  and  interpret 
our  Bible  for  ourselves  and  for  the  Jewish  people  at  large;  and 
not  only  our  Bible,  but  all  our  vast  literature  and  all  our  unique 
and  wonderful  and  inspiring  history.  And  thereby  we  shall 
add  our  little  mite  to  the  true  knowledge  of  God  and  God's 
way,  which  we  call  Judaism,  and  which  we  shall  preserve  and 
develop  and  hand  down  as  our  proudest  and  most  sacred  heritage 
to  our  children  and  our  children's  children. 

In  this  spirit  and  with  this  end  constantly  in  mind,  we  turn 
now  to  the  consideration,  from  the  strictly  scientific  standpoint, 
of  the  foundations,  or  perhaps  better,  some  of  the  foundations, 
of  Israel's  history,  national,  religious  and  spiritual. 

III. 

The  Sources  of  Israel's  Early  History 

The  authentic  history  of  Israel  begins  only  with  the  entrance 
of  the  tribes  into  Canaan.  Even  for  some  time  thereafter  there 
is  not  a  single  event  of  which  we  have  detailed  information. 
Not  until  the  reign  of  David  can  we  follow  the  course  of  history 
with  anything  approaching  proper  consecution,  David  estab- 
lished a  typical  Oriental  monarchy.  Among  his  numerous 
court  officials  was  the  sojer,  the  court  scribe,  who  recorded  the 


-39- 


illustrious  deeds  of  the  king  and  the  glorious  events  of  his 
reign\  Thereafter  we  have  the  Chronicles  of  Solomon  and  the 
Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah,  which,  later,  con- 
stituted the  chief  sources  of  the  authors  of  the  Books  of  Kings. ^ 

The  institution  of  the  monarchy  marks  the  beginning  of 
systematic  literary  activity  in  Israel.  A  purely  agricultural 
people,  living  under  tribal  or  semi-tribal  government,  and  during 
the  latter  portion  of  the  pre-monarchic  period  either  subject  to 
the  oppressive  Philistine  yoke,  or  engaged  in  a  death-struggle 
for  independence,  could  have  neither  opportunity,  inclination 
nor  probably  even  ability  to  produce  a  historical  or  national 
literature.  In  fact,  there  could  be  neither  national  literature 
nor  national  history,  until  the  nation  had  actually  come  into 
existence.  Not  until  the  time  of  David  were  the  loosely-related 
tribes  bound  together  into  a  fairly  close  union.  Until  then  they 
had  existed  as  almost  totally  independent  ethnic  units,  with 
merely  the  nucleus  of  a  nation  gradually  evolving  in  a  loose 
federation  of  five  or  six  tribes  in  the  central  and  northern  parts 
of  the  country.  Accordingly  all  traditions  and  whatever  liter- 
ature existed  before  the  establishment  of  the  nation  must  have 
been  altogether  tribal  in  character.  The  traditions  were  handed 
down  within  the  tribe,  and  were  recited  in  poetic  form  at  tribal 
gatherings.  Such  has  ever  been  the  beginning  of  literature,  and 
especially  among  the  Semitic  peoples'.  Science  has  proved 
conclusively,  that  the  oldest  portions  of  Hebrew  literature  are 
certain  Biblical  poems  or  fragments  of  poems^ 

But  the  moment  literature  ceases  to  be  the  product  of  pass- 
ing enthusiasm  and  ecstasy,  and  comes  to  deal  in  systematic, 
comprehensive  manner  with  every-day  life,  it  descends  from 
poetry  to  prose.  But  just  because  of  this,  prose  can  begin  only 
when  a  people  at  large  reaches  a  certain  high  stage  of  culture 


*  Cf.  II  Sam.  VIII,  17;  XX,  25. 

*  I  Ki.  XI,  41;  XIV,  19,  29,  and  passim  in  I  and  II  Ki. 

*  Cf.  Wellhausen,  Reste  des  altarabischen  Heidentums,  84flF.;  Moore, 
Judges;  International  Critical  Commentary,  136. 

*  Typical  among  these,  and  of  paramount  historical  significance  is  the 
song  of  Deborah  (Jud.  V),  undoubtedly  the  product  of  the  12th  century 
B.  C,  cf.  Moore  op.  cit.  127-173. 


-40— 


and  finds  opportunity  and  leisure  for  literary  activity.  This 
condition,  too,  began  to  obtain  in  Israel  only  after  the  establish- 
ment of  the  monarchy.  It  were  an  easy  task,  did  time  permit, 
to  trace  the  course  of  Israel's  literary  history.  However,  we  can 
state  here  only  in  a  summary  manner  that  absolutely  every  bit 
of  prose  in  the  Bible  was  written  only  after  the  rise  of  the  king- 
dom under  David,  and  was  consequently  composed  entirely 
from  the  national  standpoint.  The  entire  Bible,  therefore, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  ancient  poetic  fragments,  represents 
Israel  as  a  united  people  of  such  long  standing  that  the  national 
consciousness  dominates  everything.  The  tribal  standpoint 
is  almost  entirely  forgotten,  and  traditions,  originally  tribal  in 
character,  have  been  modified  and  recast  altogether  from  the 
national  point  of  view.  Originally  tribal  heroes,  like  Gideon 
and  Jephthah,  have  been  made  over  into  national  heroes.  So 
completely  did  the  people  come  to  feel  itself  a  nation,  that  the 
true  account  of  its  national  origin  under  David  was  altogether 
forgotten  in  favor  of  a  gradually  rising  and  commonly  accepted 
tradition,  that  ascribed  the  origin  of  the  united  people  to  remote 
antiquity  and  to  one  common  ancestor. 

This  partially  a  priori  account  of  the  beginning  and  first 
development  of  literary  activity  in  Israel  is  fully  corroborated 
by  modern  Biblical  Science.  We  know  now  that  the  entire 
Hexateuch,  i.  e.,  the  Pentateuch  plus  Joshua,  is,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  few  fragments  of  ancient  poems,  the  product  of  the 
period  between  932  B.  C,  the  date  of  the  division  of  the  king- 
dom, and  the  4th  or  3rd  century  B.  C.  It  is  absolutely  certain 
that  not  one  word  of  the  Hexateuch  goes  back  to  the  traditional 
period  of  desert  wanderings.  We  know  that  this  Hexateuch  is 
the  work  of  various  writers  and  epochs,  and  that  the  difTerent 
portions  or  documents  were  written  under  varying  conditions 
and  with  varying  purposes,  and  have  in  consequence  unequal 
historical  value. 

Hence,  for  the  early  period  of  Israel's  sojourn  in  Canaan, 
comparatively  little  trustworthy  material  exists  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch. Merely  a  few  traditions  from  the  oldest  sources,  found 
chiefly  in  Exodus,  Numbers  and  Joshua,  have  value.  Our  chief 
material  is  found  in  Judges  and  Samuel,  large  portions  of  which 


—41- 


belong  to  the  very  oldest  Biblical  sources.  The  information 
thus  gathered  is  strongly  corroborated  and  supplemented  by  the 
evidence  of  modern  excavations,  by  the  Tell-el-Amarna  letters 
and  kindred  documents,  and  occasional,  scattered  references 
upon  Egyptian  and  Babylonian  monuments,  and  by  the  study 
of  Beduin  customs  and  beliefs  of  today.  From  this  scanty 
material  we  must  reconstruct  our  early  history  of  Israel.  Small 
wonder  that  it  must  be  fragmentary,  with  many  and  serious 
lacunae,  and  that  many  questions  must  be  left  unsolved,  at  least 
for  the  present.  Still  we  can  reconstruct  the  history  sufficiently 
to  follow,  in  considerable  detail,  Israel's  developing  religious, 
social  and  economic  life,  and  determine  the  origin,  growth  and 
real  significance  of  its  various  distinctive  institutions.  And 
this,  we  believe,  is  history. 

IV 

Israel  in  the  Desert 

Israel's  real  history  begins  only  with  the  entrance  of  the 
tribes  into  Canaan.  The  Hexateuch,  written  entirely  from  the 
national  standpoint,  records  the  commonly  accepted  tradition 
of  twelve  tribes,  having  first  conquered  the  country  east  of  the 
Jordan,  crossing  the  river  under  the  leadership  of  Joshua  and, 
in  two  short  campaigns,  subduing  the  entire  country  and  ex- 
terminating all  the  original  inhabitants  except  the  Gibeonites. 
Then  the  land  is  divided  by  lot  among  the  nine  and  one-half 
tribes,  two  and  one-half  having  already  received  their  portions 
east  of  the  Jordan.  On  its  face  this  story  seems  improbable. 
How  can  a  land,  of  irregular  dimensions  and  varying  fertility, 
be  properly  divided  by  lot  among  nine  and  one-half  tribes,  of 
unequal  size  and  undoubtedly  of  varying  habits,  in  such  manner 
that  each  tribe  shall  not  only  feel  a  sense  of  perfect  fairness  in 
the  allotment,  but  shall  also  receive  a  portion  commensurate 
with  its  size  and  needs? 

This  doubt  is  corroborated  by  the  evidence  of  the  extra- 
Hexateuchal  books.  These  state  clearly  that  the  Canaanites 
were  not  speedily  nor  completely  conquered  nor  exterminated. 
Jerusalem  withstood  the  attacks  of  Benjamin,  and  succumbed 


-42- 


at  last  only  to  the  prowess  of  David  and  Judah,  at  least  a  century 
and  a  half  after  the  entrance  of  the  tribes  into  Canaan\  Gezer 
remained  unconquered  until  the  reign  of  Solomon'^.  And  for 
at  least  a  half  century  after  the  entrance  of  the  tribes,  the 
Canaanites  continued  to  hold  the  greater  and  more  fertile  and 
desirable  portion  of  the  country,  and  were  only  gradually  con- 
quered and  assimilated. 

Furthermore  abundant  Biblical  evidence  establishes  con- 
clusively that  originally  there  were  many  more  tribes  than  the 
traditional  twelve.  We  hear  in  this  early  period  of  Machir, 
Ya'ir,  Gilead,  Qain,  Qenaz,  Caleb  and  Yerachme'el.  Egyptian 
monuments  likewise  seem  to  prove  the  presence  in  Canaan,  a 
century  or  so  before  the  advent  of  the  main  body  of  the  tribes, 
of  small  nomad,  or  semi-nomad,  tribes,  called  Israel^  Jacob-el, 
Joseph-el  and  Asher\  names  of  such  prime  importance  in  later 
national  tradition,  that  we  can  not,  in  the  light  of  early  tribal 
history,  but  correlate  these  tribes  with  the  large  body  of  Israel. 
The  actual  condition  of  only  twelve  tribes  did  not  obtain  until 
David  amalgamated  a  number  of  small,  semi-nomad  tribes 
in  the  south,  among  them  Caleb,  Qain,  Qenaz  and  Yerachme'el, 
with  Judah  and  made  this  the  nucleus  of  the  united  kingdom. 

Furthermore  these  same  books  prove  conclusively  that  the 
tribes  did  not  enter  the  land  together  under  the  leadership  of 
one  man,  Joshua.  Instead  they  entered  separately,  at  different 
times  and  different  places.  Each  tribe  was  absolutely  indepen- 
dent of  all  other  tribes,  a  separate  ethnic  unit,  with  little  or  no 
sense  of  relationship  with  the  other  tribes.  Each  proceeded 
independently,  or,  at  most,  in  temporary  league  with  one  or 
two  other  tribes,  to  conquer  a  portion  of  the  country  for  itself, 
and  for  many  years  could  maintain  itself  there  only  with  dififi- 
culty  and  varying  success.  And  the  relations  between  the  tribes 
themselves  during  their  first  sojourn  in  the  land  were,  quite 


'  Jud.  I,  8,  21;  II  Sam.  V,  6-9;  cf.  Moore  op.  cit.  3-10. 
'  I  Ki.  IX,  16. 

'  Cf.  the  so-called  "Israel-stele"  of  Mernephtah,  in  Breasted,  Ancient 
Records  of  Egypt,  III,  602f. 

*  Cf.  W.  Max  Mueller,  4 57'c«  u.  Europa  nach  altigyptischen  Denkmilern, 
162ff.;  236iT. 


—43- 


as  often  as  not,  those  of  rivalry,  and  even  open  hostility,  now 
and  then  momentarily  checked  in  the  presence  of  danger  from 
the  common  enemy,  Canaanites  and  Philistines,  only,  however, 
to  flare  forth  again  when  the  danger  had  passed. 

But  if,  at  the  moment  of  entrance  into  Canaan,  the  tribes 
were  thus  totally  unrelated,  with  no  sense  at  all  of  common 
origin  or  community  of  interest;  if  each  tribe  was  absolutely 
a  separate  and  independent  ethnic  unit,  it  follows  necessarily 
that  there  could,  strictly  speaking,  have  been  no  common, 
intertribal  religion  nor  deity,  that  there  must  have  been  instead 
separate  tribal  religions  and  separate  tribal  deities,  at  least  as 
many  such  separate  deities  as  there  were  tribes.  This  a  priori, 
yet  altogether  logical  and  necessary,  conclusion  is  confirmed 
by  abundant  evidence.  We  know  not  only  of  separate  tribal 
gods  in  this  early  period,  but  also  that,  with  but  one  important 
exception,  they  were  all  represented  by  cult-objects.  The  ark 
at  Shiloh,  which  was  captured  by  the  PhilistinesS  was  originally 
the  cult-object  of  Ephraim;  the  ephod  which  Ebiathar  brought 
down  to  David^  and  through  which  thereafter  David  consulted 
the  oracle,  was  a  cult-object  of  Benjamin;  the  idol  of  Micah, 
the  Ephraimite,  which  the  tribe  of  Dan  stole,  when  compelled 
by  the  Philistines  to  abandon  their  old  home  on  the  Mediter- 
ranean coast  and  seek  a  new  abode  in  the  far  north,  became  the 
tribal  god  and  cult-object  of  Dan^;  apparently  the  golden  ephod 
which  Gideon  set  up  at  Ophra*,  became  the  tribal  cult-object 
of  the  new  and  larger  Manasseh,  which  Gideon  created  by 
amalgamating  with  the  original  Manasseh  the  greatly  decimated 
tribes  of  Machir  and  Ya'ir.  In  all  likelihood  the  brazen  serpent 
in  the  Temple,  which  Hezekiah  at  last  felt  compelled  to  destroy', 
was  originally  a  tribal  cult-object,  though  of  what  tribe  it  is 
impossible  to  say. 

But  while  absolutely  certain  that,  on  entering  Canaan,  the 
tribes  constituted  separate  ethnic  units,  and  therefore  had  sepa- 
rate tribal  gods  and  tribal  religions,  none  the  less,  at  least  in  the 
fundamentals  of  religion,  they  did  have  something  positive  and 


*  I  Sam.  IV-VI.  *  Jud.  VIII,  24-27. 

'  I  Sam.  XXI,  10;  XXIII,  6.  •  II  Ki.  XVIII,  4. 

'  Jud.  XVII-XVIII. 


-44- 


vital  in  common.  For  real  religion  is  entirely  the  product  ol  a 
people's  daily  life.  Neither  individual  nor  people  can  think 
beyond,  at  least  not  far  beyond,  daily  needs  and  experiences. 
Especially  is  this  true  of  primitive  peoples,  such  as  the  tribes 
at  that  time  were.  Such  a  people,  at  best,  conceives  of  its  gods 
as  those  supernatural  powers  which  are  able  to  satisfy  all  its 
needs;  and  all  worship  will  be  directed  to  the  one  great  aim  of 
inducing  or  compelling  these  deities  to  so  function  that  these 
needs  will  be  surely  satisfied.  Therefore,  if  possible  in  a  general 
way  to  determine  the  fundamental  needs  of  any  primitive  people, 
it  is  equally  possible  in  a  general  way  to  infer  how  it  will  conceive 
of  its  gods  and  how  it  will  worship  them.  A  people  that  has  pro- 
gressed no  further  than  the  hunting  stage  of  civilization  will 
have  what  might  truly  be  called  a  hunting  religion.  It  will 
conceive  of  its  gods  as  those  powers  that  increase  the  supply 
of  game  and  give  success  in  the  chase.  A  nomad  or  pastoral 
people  will  have  similarly  a  pastoral  religion,  an  agricultural 
people  an  agricultural  religion,  and  a  commercial  people  a  com- 
mercial religion.  But  as  a  commercial  people  comes  into  inti- 
mate contact  with  foreign  peoples  and  becomes  subject  to  foreign 
influences,  its  life  necessarily  becomes  increasingly  complex. 
And  because  we  can  no  longer  measure  all  the  forces  that  in- 
fluence this  daily  life,  we  can  no  longer  determine  deductively 
what  a  commercial  people's  religion  must  be.  But  until  this 
stage  the  task  is  simple  and  comparatively  easy. 

It  is  also  self-evident  that  as  a  people  gradually  passes 
from  one  stage  of  civilization  to  the  next,  the  religious  develop- 
ment must  follow  apace.  A  hunting  people  can  not  have  an 
agricultural  religion.  But  equally  an  agricultural  people  must 
have  completely,  or  almost  completely,  outgrown  its  earlier 
hunting  religion.  If  the  transition  from  one  stage  of  civilization 
to  the  next  be  normal  and  gradual,  the  religious  evolution,  too, 
will  be  slow  and  natural.  But  if  the  transition  be  rapid,  and, 
in  a  certain  sense,  abnormal,  it  follows  that  the  people  must 
develop  its  new  religion  in  a  rapid,  unnatural  manner,  borrowing 
largely  from  those  foreign  sources,  contact  with  which  has 
brought  about  the  transition. 

When  the  tribes  forced  their  Avay  into  Canaan,  they  came 
from  out  the  great  Arabian  desert  to  the  east  and  south.    There 


-45- 


they  had  lived,  for  decades  and  centuries,  as  typical  nomads, 
practically  the  same  life  that  the  Beduin  in  the  vast,  unchange- 
able desert  still  live  today.  The  sojourn  in  Egypt  and  the 
exodus  under  Moses  were  undoubtedly  historical  facts,  but 
only  in  the  life  of  some  one  single  tribe,  probably  Judah\  and 
certainly  not  in  the  life  of  all  the  tribes,  and  still  less  of  the 
united  people  or  nation.  But  whatever  their  actual  historic 
reality,  they  left  practically  no  impress  upon  the  early  life  or 
fortunes  of  any  of  the  tribes.  Throughout  their  pre-Canaan, 
desert  existence,  the  tribesmen  had  been  typical  Beduin,  wander- 
ing about  with  flocks  and  herds  in  constant  search  of  pasturage 
and  water.  Such  a  life  is  necessarily  of  the  simplest.  The 
civilization  of  any  people  may  well  be  measured  by  its  house- 
hold, and  particularly  by  its  kitchen,  equipment.  And  where 
the  contents  of  the  tent  must  be  so  limited,  that  at  almost  a 
moment's  notice  they  can  be  readily  packed,  while  the  clan  moves 
onward  in  search  of  new  pasturage,  it  follows  that  the  life  itself, 
with  all  its  needs,  must  be  simple  indeed.  The  needs  of  the 
Beduin  might,  then  and  now,  be  reduced  to  three;  first,  pas- 
turage and  water  for  sheep  and  cattle;  second,  offspring  of  sheep 
and  cattle;  and,  finally,  human  offspring,  that  the  race,  or, 
more  specifically,  the  family,  clan  and  tribe,  might  not  perish. 
In  common  with  most  primitive  peoples,  the  Beduin  feels  that 
he  himself  can  not  satisfy  these  needs.  But  with  these  satisfied, 
he  can  easily  shift  for  himself.  Consequently  he  conceives  of 
god  or  gods  as  those  superhuman  powers  that  produce  human 
and  animal  offspring,  and  cause  the  scanty  desert  herbage  to 
sprout,  and  the  precious  water  to  well  forth.  Just  such  a  Beduin 
picture  of  the  deity  and  of  life  and  its  origin,  we  have  in  the 
oldest  version  of  the  Paradise  story*.  And  all  Beduin  worship 
will  be  directed,  not  towards  giving  thanks  for  blessings  received, 
for  thanksgiving  is  an  advanced  and  quite  spiritual  conception, 
totally  unknown  to  primitive  man,  but  towards  inducing  or 
compelling  these  deities  to  continue  these  indispensable  bless- 
ings. 


'  Cf.  above  p.  229. 

*  Gen.  II,  7-9;  16-25;  III,  l-7a;  8-18;  19a^;  21-22a;  23;  24b^;  cf.  Gunkel, 
Genesis'  to  II  9,  16  and  III  16-19. 


—46— 

From  all  this  it  is  clear  that,  although  there  were  practically 
as  many  separate  religions  as  there  were  tribes,  and  certainly 
at  least  as  many  gods,  these  separate  tribal  religions  must  have 
been  very  similar  to  one  another,  both  in  theology,  if  this  term 
may  be  used  for  something  so  primitive,  and  in  ritual.  And 
although  each  tribe  necessarily  had  its  own  tribal  god  and  cult- 
object,  none  the  less  all  these  gods  must  have  been  conceived 
of  as  possessing  much  the  same  powers,  discharging  much  the 
same  functions,  subject  to  much  the  same  influences,  and  there- 
fore to  be  worshipped  in  much  the  same  manner.  While,  ac- 
cordingly, we  may  not  for  one  moment  disregard  this  essential 
fact  of  the  separate  tribal  gods  and  religions,  we  may  never- 
theless speak  correctly  of  tribal  religion  in  general,  i.  e.,  the 
fundamental  principles  and  rites  of  pastoral  religion  which  all 
the  tribes  had  in  common.  This  necessarily  contrasted  strongly 
with  the  typically  agricultural  religion  of  the  Canaanites,  with 
which  these  tribes  now  came  into  intimate  contact,  and  served 
as  a  certain  mark  of  distinction  from  the  Canaanites,  and  as 
a  certain  bond  of  union  between  the  tribes.  Out  in  the  desert, 
where  no  other  religious  conceptions  could  obtain,  this  fact  of 
common  religious  fundamentals  could  have  no  significance  nor 
unifying  force.  But  in  the  new  land,  with  its  strange,  agricul- 
tural life  and  religion,  the  facts  of  common  desert  origin,  common 
religious  fundamentals,  and  common  Canaanite  enemy,  must 
have  served  as  powerful  forces,  making  for  ever  closer  tribal 
federation. 

And  as  the  tribes  grew  together  into  larger  and  ever  fewer 
ethnic  groups,  the  various  tribal  gods  had  of  necessity  to  fuse 
correspondingly,  largely  just  because  they  were  the  outgrowths  of 
the  same  fundamental  conceptions.  And  when,  out  of  the 
many,  separate,  independent  tribes,  one  nation  did  at  last 
evolve,  it  follows  that  the  separate  tribal  gods  must  finally  have 
fused  completely,  until  the  conception  of  a  national  god,  logic- 
ally and  necessarily,  sprang  into  being. 

But  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  these  gods  were  mere  ab- 
stract, philosophic  conceptions,  the  resultants  and  expressions 
of  the  tribesmen's  daily  needs,  and  that  this  gradual  fusion 
proceeded  in  an  abstract  and  philosophic  manner.     Each  tribal 


—47- 


god  was  a  highly  concrete  and  individualized  deity.  The  power 
of  each  extended  only  over  his  own  particular  territory  and  tribe, 
with  all  the  members  of  which  he  was  intimately  related,  either 
as  the  divine  father,  or  through  a  covenant,  established  and 
frequently  renewed  by  means  of  a  peculiar  covenant-sacrifice\ 
Of  this  sacrifice  the  tribesmen  themselves  ate  the  greater  part. 
But  a  portion  was  also  given  to  the  deity,  and  was  thought  to 
be  actually  consumed  by  him.  It  is  this  covenant-sacrifice  that 
later  developed  into  the  so-called  "peace-oflfering."  And  since 
each  tribal  god  was  thus  individualized,  it  follows  in  particular 
that  each  had  his  own  individual  name,  that  distinguished  him 
from  all  other  deities.  Among  the  early  Semites,  as  among 
almost  all  primitive  peoples,  the  name  is  an  indispensable  part 
of  the  deity's  being.  Until  his  real  name  is  known,  so  that 
prayers  and  sacrifices  may  be  directed  to  him  in  person,  it  is 
absolutely  impossible  to  worship  him*.  Hence  the  four  differ- 
ent Biblical  traditions  of  the  revelation  of  the  divine  name' 
imply  four  different  accounts  of  the  moment  and  manner  in 
which  the  worship  of  Jahwe  actually  began  in  Israel. 

Unfortunately,  however,  few  of  the  names  of  these  original 
tribal  deities  have  been  preserved,  so  completely  have  the 
ancient  tribal  traditions  been  reworked  to  accord  with  the 
later  national  standpoint.  We  hear,  almost  accidentally,  that 
in  his  covenant  with  Laban  Jacob  swears  in  the  name  of  Pachad 
Yitzchaq*,  undoubtedly  a  deity,  and  presumably  an  ancient 
tribal  deity.  Possibly  too,  though  by  no  means  certainly, 
Shaddai,  so  frequently  used  as  an  appellative  of  the  deity  in 
the  early  part  of  the  Priestly  Code\  was  originally  the  name 
of  a  tribal  god.  However  the  only  name  of  which  we  can  be 
absolutely  sure  is  Jahwe,  undoubtedly  originally  the  god  of  the 
Qenites.    His  worship  passed  over  to  the  larger  tribe  of  Judah, 


*  Cf.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Religion  of  the  Semites^,  269ff. 

*  Cf.  my  Doctriyte  of  Sin  in  the  Babylonian  Religion  {Mitteilungen  des 
vorderasiatischen  Gesellschaft,  1905,  3)  35flF. 

»  Gen.  IV,  26;  Ex.  Ill,  1-15;  VI,  3;  XXXIV,  6. 

*  Gen.  XXXI,  53. 

*  Gen.  XVII,  1;  XXVIII,  3;  XXXV,  11;  Ex.  VI,  3;  cf.  Carpenter  and 
Harford,  The  Composition  of  the  Hexateuch,  54f. 


—48— 

when,  under  David,  the  Qenites  were  amalgamated  with  that 
tribe,  or  perhaps  some  time  before  this.  And  when  at  last  the 
nation  came  into  being  under  David,  it  was  but  natural  that 
his  own  tribe,  Judah,  then  the  largest  and  most  powerful  of 
all  the  tribes,  should  exert  the  dominant  influence  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  national  principles  and  institutions.  And  while 
the  consequent  national  religion  was  the  result  of  the  fusion 
of  the  various  tribal  religions,  and  the  national  god  a  composite 
picture,  as  it  were,  of  the  various  tribal  gods,  still  to  this  com- 
posite, national  deity  the  god  of  Judah  naturally  contributed, 
not  only  the  most  numerous  and  distinctive  features,  but  also 
the  name  Jahwe.  The  various  names  of  the  other  tribal  gods 
were  speedily  and  purposely  forgotten. 

Just  because  this  new  national  god  was  a  composite  picture 
of  the  separate  tribal  gods,  and  likewise  was  perhaps  the  most 
concrete  possible  expression  of  the  supreme  fact  that  out 
of  the  many  separate  tribes  one  nation  had  at  last  evolved, 
David,  probably  as  the  very  master  stroke  of  his  diplomacy, 
planned  a  brand-new  sanctuary  to  this  brand-new  deity  in  his 
brand-new  capital.  And  as  a  further  piece  of  diplomacy,  he 
brought  up  the  old  ark  of  Ephraim  from  Kiriath-ye'arim, 
where  it  had  lain,  almost  forgotten,  for  three-quarters  of  a 
century,  and  deposited  it  in  his  temporary  sanctuary  at  Jersua- 
lem\  It  showed  concretely  that  the  old  tribal  god  of  Ephraim 
was  now  one  with  the  new  national  god  of  united  Israel.  And 
for  the  same  reason  he  must  have  deposited  in  the  sanctuary 
the  ephod  of  Benjamin,  and  presumably,  too,  many  of  the  cult- 
objects  of  the  other  tribes,  among  them,  no  doubt,  the  brazen 
serpent.  But  it  was  inevitable  that  these  cult-objects  undergo 
a  complete  transformation  under  the  influence  of  the  new 
national  god  and  national  religion.  The  brazen  serpent,  appar- 
ently alone,  for  some  reason  or  other,  continued  to  receive  a 
certain  measure  of  worship,  necessitating  its  eventual  destruc- 
tion by  Hezekiah.  Most  of  the  cult-objects  seem  to  have 
speedily  disappeared.  The  ephod  of  Benjamin  was  gradually 
transformed  by  tradition,  until  it  became,  in  the  Priestly  Code, 
the  'Urim  and  Tummim  in  the  high-priest's  breastplate,  bound 

*  II  Sam.  VI. 


—49— 

by  the  ephod  to  the  sacred  garments\  And  the  ark  of  Ephraim, 
apparently  the  most  important  tribal  cult-object,  containing 
probably  a  sacred  stone,  or  hetyl,  in  which,  according  to  a  com- 
mon primitive  Semitic  belief,  the  deity  was  thought  to  dwell**, 
became  in  the  new  national  tradition,  the  receptacle  of  the  two 
tablets  of  the  Decalog.  But  in  accordance  with  the  dominant 
Qenite,  or  Judahite,  conception  of  the  deity,  Jahwe  himself, 
the  national  god  of  Israel,  was  thereafter  never  to  be  repre- 
sented more  by  idol  or  cult-object,  was  to  develop  from  this 
point  into  the  incorporeal,  spiritual,  universal  god  of  the  prophets. 

But  all  this  anticipates.  Of  the  many  tribal  gods  Jahwe 
alone  do  we  know  positively  by  name.  But  the  name  itself  is 
most  significant.  Various  etymologies  have  been  suggested\ 
The  one  most  generally  accepted  is  that  the  name  is  a  hiphil 
form  of  hawa,  "to  be,"  and  means  "he  causes  to  be,"  or  "to 
exist,"  in  other  words,  designates  Jahwe  as  the  creator  of  life. 
And,  as  said  before,  just  this  was  the  natural  Beduin  conception 
of  the  deity.  He  was  the  creator,  not  of  the  earth,  nor  the 
whole  universe,  for  these  are  far  beyond  the  limited  ken  of  the 
desert  tribesman,  but  of  life  itself,  the  life  of  his  own  children 
and  fellow- tribesmen,  of  his  sheep  and  cattle,  and  of  the  plants 
and  herbage  from  which  these  feed.  He  was  thought  to  dwell 
upon  a  sacred  mountain  far  out  in  the  desert,  and  long  after 
the  tribes  had  fused  together  into  the  nation,  he  was  still  thought 
by  some  to  yet  dwell  there.  It  was  to  this  mountain  that 
Elijah  pilgrimed,  when,  in  despair  at  the  seeming  hopelessness 
of  his  task,  he  felt  the  need  of  communing  directly  with  Jahwe; 
and  there,  in  the  sacred  cave  on  top  of  the  mountain,  he  had  his 
vision  and  heard  Jahwe  speaking  in  the  still  small  voice  . 

But  Jahwe  was  not  the  only  original  tribal  god  thus  thought 
to  dwell  upon  a  sacred  mountain  in  the  desert.  The  Bible 
speaks  of  several  sacred  mountains  and  other  spots  out  in  the 
desert,  which  must  have  been  originally  seats  of  tribal  gods 
and  local  tribal  sanctuaries.     In  the  later  national  traditions 


^  Ex.  XXVIII,  6-30. 

'  Cf.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Religion  of  the  Semites*,  200ff . 
'  Cf.  Davidson,  in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  II,  199. 
*  I  Ki.  XIX,  1-14. 


-50— 


these  various  sacred  mountains,  too,  were  all  fused  under  the 
names  of  Sinai  or  Horeb.  But  these  two,  at  least,  must  origin- 
ally have  been  absolutely  distinct  peaks.  Num.  X,  33,  a  part  of 
one  of  the  oldest  Hexateuchal  codes\  tells  that  the  mountain 
of  God  was  only  a  three  days'  journey  from  the  Promised  Land. 
According  to  Deut.  I,  2,  it  was  an  eleven  days'  journey  from 
Horeb  to  the  Jordan  opposite  Jericho  by  way  of  Mt.  Se'ir  and 
Qadesh  Barne'a.  And  according  to  Deut.  XXXIII,  2;  Jud. 
V,  4  and  Hab.  Ill,  3,  Sinai  was  a  peak  in  this  very  range  of  Mt. 
Se'ir.  Certainly  Qadesh,  too,  in  the  wilderness  south  of  Judah, 
must  have  been  originally,  as  the  name  implies,  a  sacred  place. 
From  this  it  can  be  seen  how  futile  are  the  usual  attempts  to 
determine  the  exact  location  of  Sinai,  and  to  identify  it  with 
any  one,  single  peak  in  the  so-called  Sinaitic  peninsula. 

This  idea  of  the  particular  dwelling-place  of  a  deity  ac- 
cords fully  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  early  Semitic 
religion,  and  is  amply  corroborated  by  Biblical  evidence.  Gen- 
esis tells  repeatedly  that  the  patriarchs  erected  altars  at  places 
where  they  believed  a  deity  had  revealed  himself\  These  altars 
were  erected,  not  to  a  general  national  or  universal  god,  but, 
as  is  expressly  stated  repeatedly,  to  the  particular  deity  who 
had  appeared  in  that  one  single  spot,  and  had  thus  signified 
that  this  was  his  own  peculiar  abode.  Similarly,  when  David 
was  driven  by  Saul  to  seek  refuge  among  the  Philistines,  his 
chief  complaint  was  that,  away  from  his  own  land,  he  could  no 
longer  worship  his  own,  native  god,  but  must  worship  the  gods 
of  the  new  land^  And  when  Na'aman,  the  Syrian,  had  been 
cured  by  Elisha,  and  would  in  gratitude  worship  the  god  of 
Israel,  he  could  do  so  only  by  taking  with  him  to  Damascus 
two  ass-loads  of  earth  from  the  land  of  Israel,  whereon,  in  the 
foreign  land,  he  might  erect  a  little  shrine  to  the  strange  god\ 
The  god  and  the  land,  or  more  correctly  a  certain  spot  of  land, 
were  in  primitive  Semitic  religion  inseparably  associated^ 


^  Cf.   my  Biblical  Theophanies,  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie  XXVIII 
(1913),  23f. 

'  Gen.  XII,  7f.;  XVI,  13;  XXII,  4,  18;  XXVI,  25. 
'  I  Sam.  XXVI,  19.  Ml  Ki.  V,  17. 

'  Cf.  Robertson  Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites^,  92ff, 


—51— 

Some  of  the  tribes,  it  is  clear,  had  the  tradition  that  when 
they  migrated  from  their  desert  abode,  their  god,  too,  forsook 
his  home  and  marched  with  them,  represented  by,  or  contained 
in,  the  tribal  cult-object,  as  for  example,  the  ark  of  Ephraim. 
But  the  Qenite  tradition,  preserved  in  Ex.  XXXIII  and  XXXIV, 
tells  positively  that  Jahwe  refused  to  forsake  his  holy  moun- 
tain^  And  long  after  the  Qenites  had  taken  up  their  semi- 
permanent residence  in  the  wilderness  south  of  Judah,  the 
conception  still  prevailed  in  the  minds  of  some,  as  the  Elijah 
story  shows,  that  Jahwe  still  dwelt  upon  his  sacred  mountain 
out  in  the  desert.  And  thither,  at  their  great,  annual  festival, 
the  Qenites  must  have  pilgrimed,  to  properly  discharge  their 
religious  obligations  in  the  very  presence  of  their  tribal  god. 

This  great,  annual  festival  was  celebrated  in  early  spring, 
when  the  sheep  and  cattle  cast  their  young.  The  principle  that 
a  man  is  sole  owner  of  all  that  he  creates  seems  fundamental  in 
all  society.  And  since  Jahwe,  together  with  other  tribal  gods, 
was  conceived  of  as  the  creator  of  the  life  of  sheep  and  cattle, 
he  must  also  have  been  looked  upon  as  their  original  owner. 
All  tribal  cattle,  and  for  that  matter  all  human  beings  and  all 
plant  growth  likewise,  were  regarded  as  his  creatures,  and 
hence  as  his  peculiar  property.  That  being  the  case,  it  followed 
that  the  cattle  could  not  be  used  with  impunity  by  men,  were 
forbidden,  taboo,  holy,  qadosh.  And  yet  the  Beduin  in  the  desert 
must  live  chiefly  from  his  sheep  and  cattle,  or  at  least  from  their 
products  of  milk  and  wool.  Therefore  some  way  had  to  be  found 
to  set  aside  the  original  divine  property  right  and  remove  the 
taboo,  without,  however,  angering  the  deity.  This  same  con- 
ception and  this  same  problem  exist  for  most  primitive  men 
in  the  pastoral  and  agricultural  stages  of  civilization,  and  the 
same  solution  has  been  given  by  practically  all,  viz.,  the  prin- 
ciple, that  might  well  be  called  the  law  of  the  removal  of  taboo, 
that  the  sacrifice  of  a  part,  and  especially  the  first  and  best 
part,  removes  the  taboo  upon  the  remainder,  redeems  it,  to  use 
the  technical  term,  for  common  use.  The  application  of  this 
principle  to  desert  life  meant  that  the  deity's  original  property 

'  Cf.  my  Biblical  Theophanies,  in  Zeitschrift  fur  AssyriologieXXV  (1911), 
171ff. 


-52- 


right  to  all  cattle  could  be  obviated  only  by  the  taboo-sacri- 
fice of  the  firstlings  of  the  cattle.  These  had  to  be  given  to  the 
deity  completely.  In  the  earliest  stages  of  religious  evolution, 
these  animals  were  merely  killed  at  the  sacred  stone,  the  fore- 
runner of  the  later  altar,  and  their  blood  was  smeared  upon  this, 
while  their  carcasses  were  left  on  the  ground  to  be  eaten  by  birds 
and  beasts  of  prey^  Later,  in  more  advanced  civilization,  the 
animal  was  burned  completely  upon  the  altar.  And  still  later, 
except  in  special  cases,  only  a  portion  of  the  animal,  the  'azqa- 
rah"^  or  "symbol,"  was  burned;  the  remainder  became  the  food 
of  the  priests.  But  always  under  no  condition  might  the  sacri- 
ficer  himself  partake  of  his  own  taboo-sacrifice.  This  very 
logical  prescription  distinguished  the  taboo-sacrifice  outwardly 
from  the  covenant-sacrifice.  In  time  this  taboo-sacrifice  de- 
veloped into  the  'olah,  the  minchah,  the  chattath  and  the  'asham 
of  the  Priestly  Code. 

These  firstlings  seem  to  have  been  sacrificed  regularly 
eight  days  after  birth\  And  since  all  sheep  and  cattle  cast 
their  young  at  almost  the  same  time,  these  firstlings  naturally 
could,  and  would,  all  be  sacrificed  together,  and  this  occasion 
would  constitute  the  most  important,  if  not  the  sole  festival  of 
these  pastoral  tribes.  In  addition  to  these  firstling  sacrifices, 
the  tribesmen  participated  in  the  sacred  dance,  the  climax  of 
the  celebration,  that  gave  to  these  festivals  their  common  desig- 
nation, chag,  from  chagag,  "to  dance,"  and  to  this  particular 
festival  its  special  name,  pesach,  from  pasach  also  "to  dance," 
apparently  with  a  peculiar  step  or  limping  motion^  This  fes- 
tival was  the  forerunner  of  the  later  Passover,  and  these  first- 
ling sacrifices,  of  the  later  Paschal  lamb. 

But  Jahwe  and  the  other  tribal  gods  were  the  creators, 
not  only  of  animals,  but  of  human  life  as  well.  Logically, 
therefore,  we  would  expect  that  all  human  firstborn  would  be 
likewise  offered  as  taboo-sacrifices.  And  there  is  ample  evi- 
dence that  the  sacrifice  of  first-born  children  did  play  a  prominent 


^  Cf.  Wellhausen,  Reste  des  altarabischen  Heidentums^ ,  116ff. 
'  Lev.  II,  2,  9,  16;  V,  12;  VI,  8;  XXIV,  7;  Num.  V,  26. 
'  Ex.  XXII,  29. 
^  Cf.  I  Ki.  XVIII,  26,  and  the  adjective  ptsseach,  "lame." 


—53- 


role  in  all  early  Semitic  religion^  Our  ancestors,  too,  originally 
sacrificed  their  firstborn  children  on  the  eighth  day  after  birth, 
sure  that  only  thereby  could  the  favor  of  the  deity  be  gained, 
and  further  offspring  be  ensured. 

But  as  parental  love  gradually  became  stronger  than  fear 
of  the  deity,  ways  and  means  naturally  were  found  to  evade  the 
original  awful  sacrifice.  First-born  males  were  instead  often 
consecrated  to  lifelong  service  of  the  deity,  became  the  first 
regular  priests.  Or  perhaps  a  substitute  sacrifice  was  offered, 
either  some  fitting  animal,  generally  a  lambS  or  perhaps,  as 
among  the  Carthaginians^  a  slave.  Perhaps,  too,  after  large 
shrines,  with  fixed  bodies  of  priests  and  urgent  needs  for  material 
upkeep,  had  arisen,  a  payment  of  money  was  accepted  in  lieu 
of  the  actual  sacrifice  of  the  child  or  of  a  substitute  animal*. 

Or,  finally,  since  actually  all  children  were  taboo,  by  a  dif- 
ferent, but  equally  natural,  application  of  the  same  principle, 
that  the  sacrifice  of  a  part  of  the  tabooed  object  redeems  the 
remainder,  the  custom  arose  of  redeeming  all  males,  at  least, 
by  sacrificing  a  part  of  the  child  to  the  deity,  a  part,  naturally, 
that  could  be  spared  without  maiming  the  child  too  greatly. 
This  same  custom  exists  among  many  primitive  peoples,  express- 
ing itself  in  the  ceremonies  of  knocking  out  teeth,  cutting  off 
the  hair,  or  perhaps  removing  a  joint  of  one  of  the  fingers  or 
toes.  But  the  part  most  commonly  sacrificed,  probably  partly 
because  from  the  very  organ  whose  function  the  ceremony  was 
intended  to  further,  was  the  foreskin.  This,  of  course,  is  the 
origin  of  the  very  wide-spread  custom  of  circumcision,  at  least 
as  practiced  by  the  Semites. 

In  time,  when  the  real  origin  and  significance  of  these 
various  means  of  evading  the  actual  first-born  sacrifice  were 
forgotten,  it  was  not  surprising  that  they  should  be  duplicated, 
even  consciously,  that,  for  example,  a  people  that  practiced 
circumcision  should  also  regularly  redeem  its  first-born  by  the 


*  Cf.  Robertson  Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites^  464,  who,  however, 
somewhat  misstates  the  matter. 

"  Cf.  my  Doctrine  of  Sin  in  the  Babylonian  Religion  {Mitteilungen  der 
vorderasiatischen  Gesellschaft,  1905,  3),  pp.  69ff. 

»  Diodorus  Siculus,  XX,  14.  ■*  Num.  XVIII,  15f. 


-54— 


additional  means  of  a  substitute  animal  or  the  payment  of 
redemption  money. 

Biblical  evidence  proves  conclusively  that,  at  different 
periods  in  their  religious  evolution,  our  ancestors  practiced  all 
these  rites  of  sacrifice  and  redemption  of  first-born  with  the 
possible  exception  of  the  substitution  of  a  slave.  In  all  likeli- 
hood, when  they  entered  Canaan  they  had  partially,  though 
by  no  means  completely,  outgrown  the  original  sacrifice  itself. 
Circumcision,  too,  was  universally  practiced  by  them,  while, 
to  a  certain  extent  at  least,  the  first-born  was  generally  regarded 
as  the  natural  family  and  clan,  if  not  tribal,  priest.  And  if  not 
already  before  entrance  into  Canaan,  then  certainly  very  soon 
thereafter,  the  custom  arose  of  substituting  a  lamb  for  the  child. 
The  oldest  Biblical  legislation^  not  only  permitted,  but  actually 
commanded,  this  substitution,  and  thereby  prohibited  all  human 
sacrifice.  Such  was  the  general  conception,  not  only  of  Jahwe, 
but  in  a  general  way,  of  all  original  tribal  gods,  and  such  were 
the  most  important  details  of  their  original  worship.  It  may, 
of  course,  be  objected,  that  this  description  fits  the  god-con- 
ception and  worship,  not  only  of  the  Israelite  tribes,  but  of  all 
Semites  in  the  pastoral  stage  of  civilization.  This  is  perfectly 
true.  We  know  now  that,  in  origin,  the  religion  of  Israel  differed 
not  one  whit  from  common  primitive  Semitic  religion;  that  it 
began  as  a  purely  pastoral  Semitic  cult  and  continued  as  such 
for  a  long  time,  during  the  entire  period  of  desert  life,  and  even 
during  the  first  years  of  the  sojourn  in  Palestine.  And  only 
through  a  long  and  gradual  evolution,  beginning  with  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  kingdom,  with  its  consequent  transformation  of 
the  life  of  the  people,  and  the  rise  of  prophecy,  did  it  differentiate 
itself  from  other  Semitic  religions  and  become  unique,  the  na- 
tional religion  of  Israel,  and  eventually  the  world's  great  uni- 
versal religion,  our  Judaism. 

We  must  also  consider  briefly  the  social  side  of  the  pre- 
Canaan  tribal  life  if  we  would  rightly  understand  the  subse- 
quent national,  economic,  and  religious  development  of  Israel. 
Out  in  the  desert  there  is  absolutely  no  supreme  authority. 
Within  the  clan  or  tribe  every  man  is  entirely  the  equal  of  every 


*  Ex.  XXXIV,  19f. 


-55— 


one  else.  To  the  sheikh  the  members  of  the  tribe  generally 
resort  for  counsel,  and  to  him  they  generally  submit  their 
disputes.  But  there  is  no  power,  other  than  that  of  common 
opinion,  to  compel  the  acceptance  of  his  advice  or  decision. 
In  war  or  upon  the  march  a  temporary  leader,  always  a  renowned 
warrior,  is  elected,  who  plans  and  leads  in  battle,  determines 
the  day's  march  and  the  halting-place  at  night.  Beyond  this, 
common  opinion  as  to  what  is  fundamentally  just  is  the  only 
powerful,  all-compelling  factor  in  regulating  tribal  social  life. 
It  has,  however,  led  to  the  recognition  of  certain  unwritten 
laws,  chief  of  which  is  that  of  blood-revenge,  but  at  the  bottom 
of  all  of  which,  and  in  fact  of  all  desert  social  life,  lies  the  prin- 
ciple of  fit,  measured,  and  absolutely  just  compensation  or 
retaliation,  the  practical  expression  of  the  universal  principle 
of  stern,  uncompromising  justice  and  personal  equality^ 

And  of  this  desert  life,  with  its  unrestricted  liberty  and 
equality,  the  true  nomad  is  inordinately  proud.  The  farmer, 
or  fellah,  seems  worthy  only  of  his  contempt.  As  a  rule,  only 
gradually  and  with  misgiving  does  he  adopt  the  agricultural 
or  semi-agricultural  life,  even  Avith  its  many  material  advantages 
of  ease  and  comfort  and  a  fairly  stable  and  varied  food  supply. 
With  all  its  hardships  and  scanty  and  monotonous  fare,  the 
Beduin  prefers  his  desert,  with  its  assurance  of  complete  per- 
sonal liberty.  Slavery,  strictly-speaking,  is  practically  un- 
known in  the  desert.  Real,  individual  poverty,  too,  but  rarely 
exists,  for  each  individual  or  family  has  undisputed  claim  upon 
the  rest  of  the  clan  or  tribe  for  help  or  maintenance  in  need. 
Sexual  morality,  too,  is  upon  a  very  high  plane.  Adultery  and 
unchastity  are  almost  unknown,  and  are  punished  by  the  sever- 
est penalties,  generally  deaths  This  is  all  the  more  striking, 
when  contrasted  with  the  standards  and  practices  of  sexual 
morality  that  obtained,  for  perfectly  comprehensible  reasons, 
among  the  agricultural  Semites,  as,  for  example,  the  Canaanites^ 
Parental  and  filial  relations,  too,  are  most  carefully  cherished 
in  the  desert.  The  father  or  grandfather,  unless  incapacitated 
by  age,  exercises  supreme  authority  within  the  family  or  clan. 


^  Cf.  Blunt,  Bedidns  of  the  Euphrates,  392ff.;  -lOSff. 

"  Op.  cit.  405ff.  '  Cf.  below,  p.  281. 


-56- 


and  is  accorded  unquestioning  and  punctilious  obedience  and 
reverence  by  all  members,  even  though  fully  advanced  to  man's 
estate. 

This  pride  in  the  life  and  virtues  and  unrestricted  liberty 
and  equality  of  the  desert,  this  sense  of  sexual  morality,  parental 
and  filial  respect  and  affection,  and  of  absolute  justice  and 
community  of  interest,  characterize  the  Beduin  for  all  time. 
We  can  trace  these  influences  in  Israelite  life;  surviving  the  far- 
reaching  transformation  from  the  pastoral,  nomad  existence  of 
the  desert  to  the  agricultural  life  in  Canaan;  constituting,  when 
coupled  with  the  conception  of  the  national  god  of  Israel,  who 
demands  and  delights  in  moral  and  ethical  conduct,  some  of 
the  most  fundamental  principles  of  prophetic  religion  and  pro- 
phetic ethics,  particularly  in  opposition  to  the  altogether  differ- 
ent and  vastly  lower  ethical  standards  and  practices  of  Canaanite 
and  foreign  religions,  against  which  the  prophets  had  con- 
stantly to  combat;  in  consequence  becoming  conscious  and 
fundamental  principles  of  Judaism  and  Jewish  ethics,  and 
therefore  surviving  in  us  down  to  the  present  day,  and  through- 
out all  these  ages  exerting  a  potent  influence  upon  the  evolution 
of  our  religion,  and  our  religious  and  social  psychology.  The 
incidents  of  Uriah^  and  Naboth'^;  the  purity  of  family  life,  and 
the  intensity  of  parental  and  filial  love  and  sense  of  duty;  the 
inherent  antipathy  to,  and  practical  restriction  of  slavery;  the 
stern  insistence  upon  absolute  social  justice,  and  the  concep- 
tion of  the  God  of  Israel  as  primarily  a  god  of  justice;  the  rise 
of  prophecy  in  Israel,  and  its  earnest,  spontaneous  championship 
of  the  poor  and  oppressed;  the  constant  and  uncompromising 
passion  for  freedom,  liberty  and  equality,  and  impatience  of  all 
undemocratic  government;  all  these  principles  that  have  ever 
distinguished  Israel  from  all  other  peoples,  and  Judaism  from 
all  other  religions,  that  have  ever  been  present  in  our  ancestors, 
and  are  imperatively  present  in  us  today,  these  principles  of 
eternal  truth  and  right  and  righteousness,  are  all,  indirectly  at 
least,  largely  the  product  of  the  desert  life  and  origins  of  our 
ancestors.  And  Judaism  can  be  rightly  understood  only  when 
we  have  traced  the  life  and  history  of  our  ancestors  back,  and 

'  I  Sam.  XI-XII.  *  I  Ki.  XXI. 


-57— 


in  as  great  detail  as  possible,  to  their  beginnings  in  the  vast, 
mysterious  desert  of  the  East.  Origins  are  by  no  means  all 
of  history;  but  they  are  an  important  part  thereof,  absolutely 
essential  to  full  comprehension,  and  dare  not  be  disregarded 
by  the  conscientious  seeker  after  truth  and  knowledge. 


Israel  In  Canaan 

In  contrast  to  their  original  desert  home,  Canaan  must  have 
seemed  to  the  Israelite  tribes  indeed  a  "land  flowing  with  milk 
and  honey."  Yet,  like  every  other  land,  the  topography  and  the 
corresponding  productivity  of  the  different  parts  vary  consider- 
ably. The  northern  and  central  portions,  Galilee  and  Samaria, 
and  particularly  the  valley  of  Jezreel,  the  low-lying  hills  of 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  and  the  Mediterranean  coast-land,  are 
very  fertile.  The  tribes  that  settled  here  must  almost  immedi- 
ately have  given  up  their  pastoral  life  for  the  easier  existence 
of  the  farmer.  But  this  necessitated  a  complete  transformation 
of  beliefs  and  habits.  Residence  in  fixed  and  permanent  abodes 
and  the  assurance  of  a  stable  and  varied  food-supply  make 
powerfully  for  advance  in  civilization.  And  inasmuch  as  these 
tribes  did  not  enter  peacefully  into  an  uninhabited  land,  since 
they  had  to  conquer  and  dispossess  the  earlier  inhabitants,  who 
had,  necessarily,  already  attained  to  this  higher  civilization, 
it  follows  that  the  agricultural  tribes  did  not  develop  this 
civilization  spontaneously  and  slowly,  but  borrowed  it  in  its 
entirety  from  the  Canaanites. 

On  the  other  hand  the  southern  portion  of  Palestine,  Judah, 
is  comparatively  rocky  and  sterile.  The  water  supply  is  scanty, 
the  mountains  steep  and  rugged,  and  the  soil,  except  in  a  few 
favored  spots,  greatly  washed  away  by  the  heavy  rains.  To  the 
south  the  country  gradually  merges  into  the  desert.  And  the 
country  east  of  the  Jordan,  although  far  more  fertile  and  capable 
of  cultivation,  is  still  quite  rugged,  while  proximity  to  the  desert 
on  the  east  lays  the  land  constantly  open  to  forays  by  marauding 
Beduin  bands.  In  consequence  the  southern  and  eastern  por- 
tions   of    Palestine    have    never    been    extensively    cultivated. 


-58- 


Accordingly,  the  tribes  that  settled  here  continued  to  live  as 
shepherds  and  cattle-raisers,  and  the  old  desert  life  and  re- 
ligious beliefs  and  practices  continued,  but  little  modified  from 
their  original  form.  The  old  desert  Jahwe  was  still  worshipped 
by  the  Qenites,  and  long  after  the  national  Jahwe  was  commonly 
believed  to  have  taken  up  permanent  residence  in  the  Temple 
at  Jerusalem,  Elijah,  the  shepherd  from  east  of  the  Jordan, 
the  uncompromising  champion  of  the  old,  desert,  pastoral  ideas 
and  ideals  of  life  and  worship,  still  pilgrimed  to  the  desert  peak, 
where,  as  he  persisted  in  believing,  Jahwe  still  had  his  own 
particular  abode. 

However,  the  southern  and  eastern  portions  of  the  land 
could  support  only  a  comparatively  limited  population.  Only 
a  few  of  the  tribes,  and  these  apparently  the  smallest  and 
weakest,  settled  here.  The  central  and  northern  portions  were 
the  most  attractive,  and  thither  the  larger  tribes  naturally 
forced  their  way.  Their  first  great  problem  was  to  learn  how 
to  till  the  soil.  Their  only  teachers  could  be  the  Canaanites, 
alongside  of  whom,  in  the  more  mountainous  portions  of  the 
country,  they  speedily  settled,  after  the  first  hostility  of  invasion 
had  subsided.  "What  must  we  do  to  farm  successfully?"  they 
asked,  and  the  Canaanites  replied,  "You  must  plow  and  sow  and 
reap."  "And  is  that  all?"  "No,"  was  the  answer,  "if  you  would 
live  in  this  land  and  be  successful  farmers,  you  must,  of  course, 
worship  the  gods  to  whom  the  land  belongs,  and  who  bestow 
its  agricultural  blessings."  This  was  an  irrefutable  argument. 
Had  the  tribes  objected,  "We  can  never  worship  those  gods; 
we  already  have  our  own  ancestral,  tribal  gods,"  the  Canaanites 
might  have  logically  replied,  "But  they  are  all  desert  gods,  who 
only  create  numerous  sheep  and  cattle  out  in  the  desert.  If 
we  went  to  live  there,  w^e  would  worship  them  too.  But  here 
you  must  worship  the  gods  of  this  land,  and,  of  course,  with  their 
own  peculiar  rites  with  which  we  have  always  worshipped  them. 
You  may  continue  to  worship  your  old  tribal  gods  too,  if  you 
wish,  but  our  gods,  at  least,  you  must  worship."  And  it  was 
absolutely  true.  Being  farmers  now,  and  in  the  land  of  these 
gods,  the  agricultural  tribes  had  to  have  an  agricultural  religion, 
had  to  adopt  completely  the  ritual  of  the  gods  of  the  land.    They 


—59- 


could  do  nothing  else.  What  were  these  gods,  and  how  were 
they  worshipped? 

In  agricultural  life  the  imperative  need  is,  of  course,  an 
abundant  crop.  A  purely  agricultural  people  raises  only  enough 
to  satisfy  its  needs  for  the  one  year.  If,  for  any  reason,  the 
crop  fails,  famine  follows.  All  the  rites  of  agricultural  religion 
will  therefore  tend  to  compel  the  deities  to  so  function  that  the 
annual  crop  will  prove  all-sufficient. 

The  primary  factors  in  agricultural  life  may  be  reduced  to 
three,  first  the  soil,  or  the  earth  itself,  conceived  as  the  great 
mother,  from  whose  capacious  womb  all  life  springs;  second, 
the  heaven  above,  the  source  of  both  rain  and  sunlight,  so  in- 
dispensable for  plant  life,  that  the  heaven  is  generally  conceived 
as  the  great  father,  and  both  rain  and  sun's  rays  are  often 
represented  as  the  fecundating  principle,  descending  from 
Father  Heaven,  fertilizing  Mother  Earth\  and  making  her 
bring  forth  the  annual  crop,  the  third  factor  in  agricultural  life, 
naturally  conceived  as  the  child  of  the  great  parent  pair,  and 
forming  with  them  a  true,  indissoluble  trinity.  This  conception 
of  Mother  Earth,  and  with  it,  implied  at  least,  of  Father  Heaven, 
and  of  the  crop,  their  Divine  Child,  is  found  among  many,  if 
not  most,  primitive,  agricultural  peoples.  It  seems  to  have  been 
common  to  all  Semitic  agricultural  peoples,  although,  of  course, 
with  many  local  variations^ 

Among  the  Canaanites  Mother  Earth  was  deified  under  the 
name  of  Astart  or  Astarte,  identical  with  the  Babylonian  Ishtar. 
Father  Heaven  received  the  name,  or,  perhaps  better,  the  title, 
Baal,  "Lord"  or  "Husband,"  and  the  crop,  the  Divine  Child, 
in  a  way  a  deity  of  rather  passive  function  and  subordinate 
rank,  was  called  by  the  general  name  or  title,  'Adon,  "Lord," 
the  Greek  Adonis,  the  parallel  of  the  Babylonian  Tammuz. 
And  since  the  crop  goes  through  an  ever-recurring,  annual 
cycle  of  sprouting,   growth,   ripening,   harvesting  and  sowing. 


^  Cf.  Dieterich,  Mutter  Erde,  15  note  2;  42ff.;  92-100;  Frazer,  TheGolden 
Baugh^,  II,  The  Magic  Art  and  the  Evolution  of  Kings,  II,  98ff.,  and  the  saying 
ascribed  to  R.  Jehudah,  mitra'  ba'ala'  de  'ara  hu',  "the  rain  is  the  husband  of 
the  earth"  {Bab.  Taanith  6b). 

"  Cf.  Noldeke,  Mutter  Erde  und  Verwandtes  bei  den  Semiten,  in  Archiv 
fur  Religionswissenschaft,  VIII  (1905),  161-167. 


—60— 

the  well-known  myth  early  arose  of  the  beautiful  youth,  Adonis, 
born  in  the  spring,  growing  to  ripe  and  flowering  manhood, 
then  suddenly  cut  down  and  buried  in  the  earth,  only,  however, 
to  rise  again  to  new  life  the  following  spring,  and  thus,  from  year 
to  year,  going  through  this  same  cycle  of  birth,  death  and 
resurrection\  And  since  each  year  it  was  in  a  way  the  old,  and 
yet,  in  fact,  a  new,  Adonis  that  was  born,  the  belief  arose,  that 
Adonis  was  always  the  first-born  and  only-begotten  child  of 
Mother  Earth,  Astarte  or  Ishtar,  who  in  turn  was,  therefore, 
always  a  virgin  until  the  birth  of  Adonis,  and  who,  therefore, 
constantly  after  each  birth  must  have  either  renewed  her  vir- 
ginity or  remained  a  virgin  in  spite  of  this  birth,  and  thus  was 
the  eternally  virgin-goddess,  even  while  at  the  same  time  the 
great  Mother  and  goddess  of  sexual  love.  And  since,  too,  the 
new  crop,  the  new  Adonis,  sprang  from  the  seed  of  the  old  crop, 
the  old  Adonis,  sown  in  the  womb  of  Mother  Earth,  Adonis 
came  in  time,  in  certain  local  forms  of  the  great  myth,  to  be 
regarded,  no  longer  as  the  child,  but  as  the  lover  and  consort 
of  Astarte  or  Ishtar,  and  was  therefore  occasionally  confused 
with  Ba'al,  the  Father  God  himself. 

It  must,  however,  not  be  imagined  that  there  was  one  great 
trinity  for  the  entire  land,  for  there  was  no  one  single  Canaanite 
nation.  The  land  was  divided  into  many,  small,  independent 
city-states,  each  with  its  local  Ba'al,  Astarte  and  Adonis,  just 
as  each  desert  tribe  had  its  own  tribal  god;  and  within  each 
city-state  there  was  at  least  one  local  shrine  consecrated  to  the 
worship  of  its  particular  trinity.  But  just  as  with  the  pastoral 
tribes,  so,  too,  the  same  conception  lay  at  the  bottom  of  the 
various  local  trinities,  and  all  were  worshipped  in  much  the  same 
manner.  Hence,  in  a  general  sense,  we  may  speak  of  Ba'al  and 
Astarte  and  Adonis  as  the  sum  total  of  the  common,  character- 
istic features  of  the  many  local  B"alim,  Ashtaroth  and  'Adonim. 

In  a  fertile  land  with  fairly  certain  annual  crops  and 
numerous,  conveniently  situated  shrines,  the  ritual  must  neces- 
sarily be  far  more  elaborate  than  that  of  the  simple,  pastoral 


^  Cf.  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough^,  V,  Adonis,  Attis  and  Osiris^;  Baudissin, 
Adonis  und  Esmun;  Vellay,  Le  ctilte  et  les  ftes  d'Adonis-Thammouz  dans 
VOrient  antique. 


-61— 


religion.  The  chief  festivals  would  naturally  fall  at  the  critical 
periods  of  the  agricultural  year,  in  spring  and  fall.  The  first 
of  these  was  the  great,  seven-day  mazzoth-iestival,  at  which  the 
last  grain  of  the  old  crop  was  eaten  sacramentally,  in  the  form 
of  mazzoth,  or  unleavened  bread,  in  order  that  none  of  the  old 
crop,  the  old  Adonis,  might  remain,  when  the  new  crop,  the  new 
Adonis,  should  be  cut.  Whatever  of  the  old  crop  could  not  be 
eaten  thus,  had  to  be  burned^  Then  on  the  day  following  the 
close  of  this  festival,  when  the  old  crop  had  been  completely 
consumed,  the  people  would  repair  to  the  fields  and  solemnly 
cut  the  first  sheaf  of  barley,  the  first  grain  to  ripen,  and  with 
this  march  in  solemn  procession  to  their  local  shrine  and  offer 
it  up  as  the  taboo-sacrifice  of  the  barley,  which  thereafter  they 
were  free  to  eat. 

But  the  same  taboo  extended  over  the  successively  ripening 
grains,  the  rye,  oats  and  wheat.  Before  each  could  be  used  for 
profane  purposes,  the  taboo  had  to  be  removed  by  the  sacrifice 
of  the  first-fruits.  Yet  the  harvest-time  is  too  short,  and  every 
day  too  important,  to  permit  of  appropriate  rites  at  the  sacrifice 
of  the  first-fruits  of  each  new  kind  of  grain,  particularly  if 
every  seventh  day  was  a  rest-day,  a  Sabbath,  upon  which  all 
work  was  taboo^  Accordingly  each  first  sheaf  was  put  aside, 
to  be  sacrificed  later  at  the  close  of  the  entire  grain-harvest. 
By  thus  symbolizing  the  actual  taboo-sacrifice,  the  people  felt 
free  to  eat  at  once  of  each  new  grain.  And  finally,  at  the  end  of 
approximately  seven  weeks,  the  usual  duration  of  the  grain- 
harvest,  these  various  first  sheaves  were  brought  to  the  local 
sanctuaries  with  solemn  procession,  and  the  joyful  festival  of 
the  first-fruits  was  celebrated. 

And  then,  at  the  close  of  the  entire  agricultural  year, 
when  the  grain  had  been  threshed  and  stored  away,  the  fruit  and 
olives  gathered,  and  the  wine  and  oil  pressed  out,  just  before 
the  beginning  of  the  rainy  season,  the  festival  of  ingathering, 
most  important  of  all,  the  chag  par  excellence,  was  celebrated 
for  seven  days.    And  on  the  following  day,  the  eighth,  the  new 


^  Cf.  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough\  VII,  The  Spirits  of  the  Corn  and  the  Wild, 
II,  72ff. 

^  Ex.  XXXIV,  21. 


-62- 


year  was  ushered  in  with  appropriate  rites  and  ceremonies  of 
purification  and  rejoicing. 

But  these  festivals  were  far  less  occasions  for  the  sacrifice 
of  first-fruits,  than  for  the  celebration  of  important  rites  by  the 
whole  people.  No  sooner  was  the  old  crop  harvested  than  the 
people  began  to  look  forward  with  anxious  hope  to  the  next 
crop.  Or  to  express  this  in  religious  language,  Adonis  was  dead; 
would  he  be  restored  to  life,  that  the  people  too  might  live? 
Much  of  the  ritual  of  these  great  festivals  centered  about  the 
thought  of  the  death  and  longed-for  resurrection  of  Adonis. 
The  festivals  began  with  a  period  of  fasting,  mourning  and  be- 
wailing the  dead  god,  which  gradually  changed  to  a  condition  of 
joy,  ecstasy  and  frenzy  at  the  thought  of  his  resurrection, 
culminating  in  wild  dances  of  the  maidens  in  the  vineyards 
on  the  last  day  or  night  of  the  festival.  There  were  also  various 
so-called  homeopathic,  magical  ceremonies,  ritual  acts,  observed 
by  practically  all  primitive  peoples,  which  rest  upon  the  premise 
that  like  always  causes  like,  that  a  desired  event  in  nature  can 
be  brought  about  by  simulating  it  in  solemn  and  detailed  ritual*. 
Thus  in  time  of  drought  the  sprinkling  of  water  from  aloft,  say 
by  some  one  perched  on  a  high  tree,  resembles  the  falling  of 
the  rain  from  heaven.  And  the  belief  was  world-wide,  that  the 
proper  performance  of  some  such  ceremony  would  invariably 
cause  the  rain  to  fall.  Ceremonies  like  this  were  common  among 
the  Canaanites.  Best  known  perhaps  was  that  of  the  gardens 
of  Adonis^  Quickly  ripening  plants  were  sown  in  richly  fertil- 
ized soil  in  flower-pots,  just  before  the  beginning  of  these  festivals, 
were  well  watered  and  kept  in  the  rays  of  the  sun,  so  that  they 
sprouted  rapidly  during  the  first  days  of  the  festival,  only,  how- 
ever to  wither  equally  rapidly.  The  sprouting  of  the  plants 
resembled,  and  was  thought  to  actually  compel,  the  sprouting 
of  the  grain,  the  rebirth  or  resurrection  of  the  dead  Adonis. 
References  to  this  ceremony,  as  known  to,  and  undoubtedly 
practiced  in  ancient  Israel,  are  found  in  the  Bible*. 

'  Cf.  Judges  XXI,  17-23;  Mishnah  Taanith  IV,  8. 
Cf.  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough^,  I,  The  Magic  Art  and  the  Evolution  of 
Kings,  I,  55ff. 

'  Cf.  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough^,  V,  Adonis,  Attis  and  Osiris\  I,  194ff. 
Is.  XVII,  lOf.  (cf.  Duhm  to  the  passage),  and  possibly  I,  29. 


—63- 


But  since  Adonis  was  regarded  as  the  only-begotten  child 
of  Ba'al  and  Astarte,  the  offspring  of  their  marriage  union, 
the  most  natural  homeopathic,  magical  ceremony  would  be  to 
simulate  this  union  in  actual  ritual.  Among  the  Babylonians, 
at  the  great  annual  new  year  festival,  the  marriage  of  the  gods 
was  appropriately  celebrated^  Among  the  Canaanites,  the 
emphasis  seems  to  have  been  laid  rather  upon  the  act  of  sexual 
union.  The  dances  of  the  maidens  in  the  vineyards  were  merely 
preliminary  to  their  being  seized  and  carried  off  by  the  young 
men  of  the  village.  Yet  this  was,  in  origin  at  least,  no  mere 
unbridled  lust,  but  a  religious  rite,  that  touched  upon  the  funda- 
mental problem  of  the  maintenance  of  life.  And  the  ceremony, 
too,  seems  to  have  constituted  originally  the  essential,  if  not 
the  sole,  marriage  rite.  The  stories  of  the  Benjaminites  and  the 
maidens  of  Shiloh^  and  of  the  dances  of  the  maidens  of  Jeru- 
salem in  the  vineyards  on  the  15th  of  Ab  and  Yom  Kippur* 
record  late  survivals  of  the  original  homeopathic,  magical 
ceremony. 

But  in  time,  in  practically  all  Semitic  agricultural  religions, 
this  ceremony  of  sacred  prostitution  came  to  be  performed  by  spe- 
cific classes  of  priests  and  priestesses,  the  qedeshim  and  qedeshoth*. 
It  was  a  peculiar  ceremony  indeed,  and  necessarily  led  to  ever- 
increasing  licentiousness.  It  was  outwardly  probably  the  most 
characteristic  Canaanite  rite,  and  distinguished  Canaanite 
religion  most  pointedly,  externally  at  least,  from  the  simple, 
pastoral  religion  of  the  desert  tribes,  with  their  high  standard 
of  sexual  morality.  We  can,  therefore,  appreciate  the  scathing 
denunciations  by  the  prophets  of  this  rite,  and  with  it  of  all  the 
many  Canaanite  elements,  that  now  began  to  enter  into  the 
religion  of  IsraeP. 

For,  as  we  have  seen,  almost  immediately  after  entrance 
into  Canaan,  the  agricultural  tribes  in  the  center  and  north  of 
necessity  adopted  the  worship  of  Ba'al  and  Astarte  and  Adonis, 


1  Cf.  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough^,  II,  The  Magic  Art  and  the  Evolution  of 
Kings,  II,  25  and  note,  130. 

^  Jud,  XXI,  17-23.  '  Mishnah  Ta'anith,  IV,  8. 

*  Cf.  Movers,  Die  Phonizier,  I,  678ff. 

'In  particular  Hosea,  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel. 


—64— 

and  began  to  frequent  the  many  local  shrines  and  participate 
in  all  the  festivals  and  rites  on  equal  terms  with  the  Canaanites. 
Not  that  the  worship  of  the  tribal  gods  was  immediately  dis- 
carded. As  long  as  tribal  distinctions  continued  to  obtain, 
the  survival  of  the  old  desert  conditions,  that  long,  too,  the 
old  tribal  gods  had  to  survive.  And  to  a  certain  extent  too, 
we  can  notice  a  gradual  fusion  of  the  old,  pastoral  religion  with 
the  new  agricultural  religion.  Typical  of  this  is  the  Biblical 
Passover,  the  outgrowth  of  the  grafting  of  the  old,  pastoral 
pesach  upon  the  agricultural  mazzoth-iest\w2LV.  The  fact  that 
these  two  festivals  came  at  practically  the  same  moment  of  the 
year  made  this  fusion  inevitable. 

But  in  all  this  process,  the  new  agricultural  religion  had 
to  dominate.  It  was  the  more  complex,  elaborate  and  attractive; 
it  was  the  religion  of  the  shrines  and  the  land;  and,  above  all,  it 
alone  was  the  direct  outgrowth  of  the  daily  life,  and  satisfied 
the  fundamental  needs,  of  the  now  agricultural  people.  The 
desert  life  and  the  shepherd  religion  were  completely  outgrown. 
The  old  tribal  gods  were  daily  becoming,  more  and  more,  half- 
forgotten  names  and  empty  symbols  of  original  tribal  distinc- 
tions; and  they  and  their  worship  threatened  to  disappear  com- 
pletely before  the  steadily  increasing  worship  of  Ba'al  and 
Astarte  and  Adonis. 

Such  now  became  the  religion  and  religious  practices  of 
the  agricultural  tribes  in  the  central  and  northern  portions 
of  the  land.  In  the  south  and  east,  however,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  old,  desert,  shepherd  life  and  religion  continued  with  but 
little  modification.  And  this  fact  alone  constituted  an  ever- 
widening  breach  between  the  two  groups  of  agricultural  and 
pastoral  tribes.  But  not  only  in  religion  did  this  breach  speed- 
ily spring  up.  The  life  of  the  farmer  differs  in  every  way  from 
that  of  the  shepherd.  The  farmer  occupies  a  fixed  abode, 
has  a  fixed  place  of  worship,  lives  in  intimate  communion  with 
fellow-men.  All  this  makes  for  comparatively  rapid  social  and 
cultural  progress.  The  shepherd,  on  the  contrary,  stands  prac- 
tically still  culturally.  Day  by  day  this  disparity  in  civilization 
and  culture  increased,  and  very  quickly  the  agricultural  tribes 

Cf.  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena  zur  Ceschichte  Israels^,  84f, 


-65- 


came  to  look  down  upon  the  pastoral  tribes  as  inferiors,  deserving 
only  of  pity  and  contempt.  Moreover  the  pastoral  tribes  were 
almost  completely  cut  off  from  their  wealthier  and  more  cultured, 
agricultural  neighbors.  The  Jordan  river  and  valley  are  not 
easily  crossed,  except  in  very  few  places.  And  along  the  northern 
border  of  Judah,  the  northernmost  limit  of  the  pastoral  tribes 
in  the  south,  an  extensive  stretch  of  land,  from  Jerusalem  on 
the  east  to  Gezer  on  the  west,  remained  Canaanite  territory 
until  the  time  of  David.  All  highroads  from  the  south  to  the 
north  passed  either  through  Jerusalem  or  the  Canaanite  country 
to  the  v/est.  Free  communication  between  south  and  north  was 
therefore  impossible.  David's  first  act  as  king  over  United 
Israel  was  the  capture  of  Jerusalem\  just  to  ensure  a  united 
kingdom  in  fact  as  well  as  in  name. 

This  breach  between  the  agricultural  and  pastoral  tribes 
was  m.any-sided  and  unbridgeable.  They  stood  too  far  apart 
religiously,  economically  and  socially.  The  feeling  of  superior- 
ity and  contempt  of  the  agricultural  tribes  was  matched  by  a 
corresponding  feeling  of  resentment  and  distrust  among  the 
pastoral  tribes.  Complete  and  permanent  fusion  of  the  two 
groups  was  impossible.  David  did,  in  the  face  of  the  great  com- 
mon Philistine  danger,  effect  a  certain  union;  and  he  and  Solomon 
by  virtue  of  their  strong  personalities  and  constant  watchfulness 
and  preparedness,  could,  although  with  difficulty  and  despite 
numerous  attempts  at  revolution,  hold  the  two  peoples  together. 
The  moment  the  weakling,  Rehobe'am,  came  to  the  throne, 
the  nation  dissolved  into  the  northern  and  southern  kingdoms, 
the  old  natural  divisions  of  agricultural  and  pastoral  tribes. 
The  eastern  pastoral  tribes,  cut  off  altogether  from  the  south, 
had  perforce  to  attach  themselves,  though  rather  loosely,  to 
the  northern  kingdom. 

And  in  religion,  too,  the  breach  was  incurable.  The  northern 
tribes  had  to  have  an  agricultural  religion,  regardless  of  whither 
this  might  tend.  But  to  the  pastoral  tribes  this  could  seem  only 
disloyalty  to  the  old,  ancestral  gods  and  traditions.  Almost 
coincident  with  the  settlement  of  the  tribes  in  the  land,  the 
conflict  began  between  the  old,  pastoral,  and  the  new,  agricultural 

'  II  Sam.  V,  6-9. 


—66— 

religions,  the  old  Jahwe,  and  the  new  Ba'al  worship.  The  latter 
flourished  in  the  center  and  north.  The  pastoral  tribes,  par- 
ticularly in  the  south,  continued  ever  the  stronghold  of  the  old 
religion  and  the  old  shepherd  ideas  and  ideals  of  life  and  virtue. 
It  can  now  be  easily  understood,  why  the  first  great  prophets, 
outwardly  the  champions  of  the  old  order,  both  religious  and 
social,  sprang  from  out  the  shepherd  tribes,  Elijah  from  east  of 
the  Jordan,  Amos  from  Tekoah  in  Judah,  the  Rechabites  from 
the  same  environment.  This  combat  between  Jahwe  worship 
and  Ba'al  worship,  that  began  now  and  continued  in  one  form 
or  other  until  the  Babylonian  exile,  furnishes  the  key  to  the 
religious  history  of  Israel.  Judaism  is  not  the  mere  continua- 
tion of  a  triumphant  desert  religion.  This  could  not  triumph; 
it  had  to  succumb,  because  the  desert  life  had  to  be  outgrown. 
But  it  was  out  of  this  conflict  that  Judaism,  the  universal 
religion,  at  last  was  born.  And  we  can  understand  the  history 
of  Judaism  correctly  only  by  knowing  and  rightly  appreciating 
these  two  great  forces  and  all  the  details  of  the  struggle. 

VI 

Conclusion 

Here  we  must  pause.  Our  subject  might  have  been  treated 
with  far  greater  detail  and  elaboration  of  evidence,  had  time 
permitted.  But  enough  has  been  said  to  clearly  present,  even 
though,  of  necessity,  in  brief  and  summary  manner,  a  modern, 
scientific  interpretation  of  the  beginning  of  Israel's  history  from 
a  positive  and  constructive  Jewish  standpoint.  It  is,  in  a  sense, 
a  two-fold  history.  It  involves,  first,  the  detailed  and  sys- 
tematic investigation  of  Israel's  national,  social,  and  economic 
evolution,  from  its  origin  in  a  heterogeneous  group  of  previously 
unrelated,  desert  tribes,  forcing  their  way,  one  by  one,  into  a 
new  and  attractive  land,  settling  down,  for  the  most  part, 
to  agricultural  life,  only  slowly  gaining  complete  control  of  the 
country  in  the  face  of  Canaanite  and  Philistine  opposition; 
but  just  because  of  this  long  and  desperate  struggle  for  ex- 
istence, developing  a  sense  of  community  of  interest,  relation- 
ship and  federation,  which  culminated  in  the  establishment  of 


—67— 

the  united  kingdom.  This,  however,  was  an  abnormal  condi- 
tion, and  could  be  only  temporary.  Thereafter  we  can  follow 
the  fortunes  of  the  two  separate  kingdoms  politically  and  econo- 
mically, noting  the  gradual  transformation  induced  by  the 
attainment  of  the  commercial  stage  of  civilization,  can  see  the 
attendant  festering,  polluting,  foreign  influences  at  work,  until 
at  last  both  northern  and  southern  kingdoms  succumb,  less  to 
conquest  by  powerful  foreign  nations,  than  to  internal,  political 
and   economic  stagnation  and  decay. 

And  in  the  second  place,  ours  is  a  study  of  Israel's  religious 
evolution.  Not  that  this  can  be  separated  from  its  political, 
economic  and  social  life,  for  all  go  hand  in  hand,  constantly 
react  upon  each  other,  and  are  incomprehensible,  the  one  with- 
out the  other.  Yet  we  can  isolate  the  religious  evolution  to  a 
certain  extent  and  follow  it  out  by  itself.  We  can  trace  this 
evolution  from  its  origin  in  primitive,  pastoral,  tribal  religion, 
with  its  different  tribal  gods  and  simple,  pastoral  ritual;  we  can 
see  this  pastoral  religion  coming  in  contact  with  the  agricultural, 
Canaanite  religion,  and  their  great,  centuries-long,  life  and  death 
struggle  immediately  beginning.  We  can  follow  out  the  suc- 
cessive steps  by  which  the  original  tribal  gods  fused  into  one 
national  god,  and  Jahwe,  originally  god  of  only  one  small  tribe 
and  lord  of  a  single,  desert,  mountain  peak,  came  at  last  to  be 
regarded  as  supreme  lord  of  the  entire  land  and  nation,  with 
earthly  residence  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  yet  gradually  con- 
ceived of  as  too  spiritual  and  transcendental  for  earthly  abode 
and  earthly  limitations  and  attributes.  We  can  trace,  too, 
step  by  step,  the  rise  and  growth,  during  this  and  the  succeeding 
periods  of  its  history,  of  the  many  characteristic  and  unique 
institutions  of  Israel,  of  the  national  consciousness,  national 
traditions  and  literature;  of  the  national,  civil  and  religious  law; 
of  prophecy,  with  its  rapidly  expanding  message;  we  can  see 
the  struggle  between  Ba'al  and  Jahwe  worship  becoming  con- 
crete and  acute,  largely  under,  and  in  opposition  to,  foreign 
influence,  in  the  days  from  Elijah  to  the  Babylonian  exile; 
the  gradual  ascendency  of  the  priesthood  over  the  prophets 
during  and  after  the  exile;  the  unique,  at  first  only  half-compre- 
hended, conception  of  Jahwe,   as  no  longer  merely  a  national 


—68— 

God,  but  now  the  universal  God  of  all  mankind,  and  Israel 
the  messenger  of  His  truth  to  all  the  world.  We  can  perceive 
momentary  revivals  of  a  decadent,  and  somewhat  speculative 
and  predictive  prophetism  in  apocalyptic  literature,  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  priestly  power  and  priestly  law  and  theology 
continue  to  develop,  until  at  last,  immediately  upon  the  close 
of  the  Pentateuchal  canon,  the  evolution  of  the  oral  law  begins. 
Here  commences  the  task  of  the  post-Biblical  historian. 

All  this,  however,  merely  foreshadows  the  possibilities  of 
presentation,  from  the  standpoint  of  Biblical  Science,  of  the 
history  of  Israel  during  the  entire  Biblical  period.  It  is  a  large 
subject,  and  can,  in  consequence,  only  be  anticipated  in  this 
paper.  It  is  impossible  to  give  here  more  than  the  merest  out- 
line of  the  leading  forces  and  tendencies  in  the  evolution  of 
Israel  in  the  earliest,  formative  period  of  its  history,  antedating 
the  establishment  of  the  kingdom.  And  in  this  entire  period, 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  Israel  was  no  more  than  a  gradually 
federating  group  of  typically  Semitic  tribes.  Only  in  the  period 
following  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom,  when,  to  combat 
the  increasing  and  corrupting,  foreign  influences,  prophecy  arose, 
with  its  distinct  and  peculiar  message,  did  all  that  was  sig- 
nificant and  unique  in  Israel's  history  and  in  Israel's  contribu- 
tion to  human  knowledge,  religion  and  civilization,  begin  to 
manifest  itself.  This  paper  could,  of  course,  no  more  than  merely 
hint  at  this  later  evolution,  and  outline  the  earliest  causes  that 
tended  to  bring  it  about.  As  the  title  indicates,  the  paper  aims 
merely  to  establish,  as  clearly  as  limited  time  and  space  will 
permit,  the  foundations,  or  better,  some  of  the  foundations, 
ethnic,  political,  psychological  and  spiritual,  upon  which  the 
later  historical  evolution  rested,  and  the  point  from  which  this 
evolution  proceeded.  The  continuation  of  the  work  must  follow 
at  some  other  time  and  place.  But  from  this  presentation  of  the 
foundations,  the  able  and  sympathetic  student  may  anticipate 
somewhat  the  subsequent  course  of  evolution  of  Israel's  real 
history. 

It  is  an  interesting  and  altogether  constructive  study.  It 
may  lead  far  from  the  beaten  course  of  the  traditional  interpreta- 
tion of  Jewish  history,  into  untrodden  fields,  new  and  strange, 


-69— 


and  to  some,  perhaps,  ominous  of  evil.  But  we  need  have  no 
fear.  Day  by  day  this  sober,  positive,  constructive  attitude 
toward  our  Jewish  history  is  gaining  ground.  And  the  time 
must  come  when  the  history  of  our  religion  will  be  thus  under- 
stood by  all  our  thinking  men  and  women.  They  will  have  full 
and  reverent  appreciation  of  our  ancient  traditions  too,  for  these 
illustrate  and  interpret  our  history,  were,  in  fact,  so  written  by 
the  early  prophetic  writers  of  the  Torah  and  the  historical 
books;  they  breathe  the  eternal  spirit  of  our  Judaism,  and  are 
a  priceless  part  of  our  sacred,  spiritual  heritage.  But  men  will 
know  full  well  how  to  distinguish  between,  and  correctly  evaluate, 
the  merely  traditional  and  the  historically  true,  will  know  how 
Judaism  came  to  be  and  the  whole  course  of  its  subsequent 
history;  and  knowing  all  this,  they  will  know  what  Judaism  is, 
and  will  revere  and  practice  it  intelligently  and  with  conviction 
and  passion.  Truth  and  knowledge  can  not  be  destructive  of 
any  religion  nor  of  genuine  faith;  they  must  be  the  touchstones 
that  separate  the  real  and  the  eternal  from  the  false  and  evanes- 
cent; they  alone  can  be  the  firm  foundation,  upon  which  may 
rest  the  living,  universal  religion,  which  we  hope  and  believe 
and  labor  that  our  Judaism  may  be. 


DATE  DUE 

i 

GA  CLORD 

.«,NTEO,NU.S.A. 

Q< 


aulora  : 


PAMPHLET  BrNDER 

"ZHZ.    Syrocuse,  N.   Y, 
Stockton,  Calif. 


'• '  t 


BS1171.M85 

The  foundations  of  Israel's  history  ... 

■  nn'.""/,?".I['^.°'?''"'  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00043  1389 


■1  '; 


b*| 


^: 


'i\l. 


y-R 


hM  *A 


